Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I beg leave to present two petitions against the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) (Scotland) Bill. One is from over 2,000 of the traders concerned, and the other from over 121,000 other residents in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. MITCHESON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the present amount of the indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The debt of the unemployment fund at present outstanding is £107, 780,000.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that the answer shows that there has been a considerable reduction in the debt, and of the fact that the reduction in the debt is being paid for as to two-thirds by industry, would my right hon. Friend consider dealing with it rather more on the lines of the Royal Commission report?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no power whatever to do so.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the copy sent to him of the resolution of 5th March, passed by a meeting of the County and Burghs of Fifeshire Transitional Payments Officers Association; and whether, and how, he proposes to meet the request contained
therein for safeguarding the position and employment of the staffs now working under public assistance departments?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have received a copy of this resolution, the subject of which—as I said on 15th February in reply to the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke)—is a matter on which I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement at the appropriate stage in the consideration of Part II of the Unemployment Bill.

Dr. LEECH: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that, when the new Unemployment Bill becomes law, consideration will be given to the engagement for work in connection with the Unemployment Assistance Board of those available persons who have been for the past three years exclusively engaged in the administration of transitional payments?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The engagement of staff will rest with the Unemployment Assistance Board, but I have no doubt that full consideration will be given by them to the claims of the persons to whom my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. GLEDHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is prepared to make any recommendations to the new board?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is entirely a matter for the board.

Mr. THORNE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the appointed day for payment of the 40 per cent. relief to local authorities has yet been fixed; if not, whether the 1st April, 1934, can be selected, in view of the fact that local authorities close the financial year on 31st March; and if he will state whether, in the event of a later date being selected, financial assistance will be afforded to distressed areas to cover the period from 1st April to the appointed day?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st March to a similar question by the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. White), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Minister of Labour when he will be in a position to state when the appointed
day is to be fixed, because he must know that many local authorities have been framing their budgets accordingly, and the result will be that they will lose a lot of money if they do not know the date?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Obviously, I am not in a position to give any indication when the date will be fixed, because I do not know when the Bill will become law.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS.

Mr. JOEL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the hunger marchers still remain in London; and how their lodging and maintenance is being assured?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): My information is that all the hunger marchers have now left London.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the practice of all public assistance committees to give assistance to unemployed households when the benefit drawn is not sufficient for the full needs of the household; and whether this is done with the authority of his Department?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): It is the duty of public assistance authorities to consider all applications for relief and to grant assistance in supplementation of existing resources where they find this necessary. This duty is statutory, and its discharge requires no authorisation by me.

Mr. PETO: In view of the misunderstandings, and in some cases misrepresentations, of the public and the unemployed, and even among the higher ranks of the clergy, on this very important question, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to make that point abundantly clear to everybody concerned?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that the state of affairs is very well known to the persons most concerned—the local authorities. As to publicity on the matter, no doubt my hon. Friend's question will promote it.

FIRE PREVENTION (GARAGES).

Mr. MAITLAND: 6.
asked the Home Secretary if, in order to assist in fire
prevention, he will take steps to bring to the notice of the public generally the regulations in force that fire-extinguishing equipment should be provided in garages, public or private, and the penalties which are incurred by the infringement of such regulations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Regulations under the Petroleum Act, 1928, which govern the keeping of petroleum spirit, in quantities of not more than 60 gallons, for private use for the purpose of motor vehicles, etc. These Regulations require inter alia the provision of suitable fire-extinguishing apparatus, or, alternatively, a supply of sand or other effective means of extinguishing petrol fires. I have no reason to think that this requirement is not sufficiently well known. The Regulations do not apply to the keeping of petroleum spirit in any other circumstances, whether in public garages or elsewhere, for which a licence from the local authority must be Obtained. It is, I believe, the general practice for such licences to contain a condition requiring the provision of adequate fire-extinguishing apparatus.

BROADCASTING (POLICE MESSAGES).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 7.
asked the Home Secretary what fee is paid by his Department to the British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of each police message broadcast; and if he will state the number of police messages broadcast since the beginning of the year?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Thirty-six messages originated by the police for police purposes were broadcast from the various stations of the British Broadcasting Corporation during January and February. No fee is paid in respect of these messages.

Mr. GLOSSOP: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there will be any limit to the number of such messages which are broadcast, and whether, in view of the fact that they are largely local in character, he will request that they should be broadcast at the conclusion of the General News instead of at the commencement.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that that must be a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. McKEAG: 10.
asked the Minister of Health in how many instances the land comprised in clearance areas has been utilised by local authorities for the building of new houses; and in how many cases is it proposed to so utilise such land within six months of the demolition of the property thereon?

Sir H. YOUNG: Information as to instances where the land comprised in clearance areas has been so utilised by local authorities is in my possession only as regards areas in repect of which compulsory purchase orders have been made. I am aware of 67 such areas and it may generally be assumed that rebuilding commences immediately after the clearance of the sites.

Mr. McKEAG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in those cases where the whole of the land of the area is not required he does not think that it is much better to concentrate upon new houses rather than upon the destruction of old ones?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that the hon. Member should give me notice of that question, because his question referred to places where the land is so required.

Mr. McKEAG: 11.
asked the Minister of Health in how many cases objections to the demolition of dwelling-houses scheduled under clearance orders have been lodged on the ground that such dwelling-houses belong to old-age pensioners; in how many cases has it been represented that the dwelling-houses comprise the only possession of the old-age pensioners; in how many cases have old-age pensioners proposed to be displaced submitted that they would be unable to pay the rents of council houses; and in how many cases has compensation been offered to such old-age pensioners?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Mr. McKEAG: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider specific cases if particulars are given to him, and, generally, in view of the very grievous injury which is being inflicted upon many people by
reason of the confiscation of their property without compensation, will he consider whether any steps can be taken to mitigate hardship in exceptional cases?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware that any such general injury is being inflicted, but I will certain consider any case which the hon. Member brings to my attention.

Mrs. TATE: 15.
asked the Minister of Health in how many cases he is assured that the slum-clearance programmes adopted by local authorities in accordance with Circular 1331 will be completed within five years?

Sir H. YOUNG: With the exception of a few instances in which I am negotiating with the authorities concerned with a view to securing acceleration, and of London, the programmes adopted by local authorities are for completion within five years.

RECONDITIONING.

Mr. JOEL: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether, to facilitate the reconditioning of old-fashioned houses, he will suggest to local authorities the possibility of converting two unsatisfactory houses into one habitable dwelling, seeing that this policy would improve dwellings, minimise public outlay, and enable available funds to be expended in other housing directions?

Sir H. YOUNG: The conversion of two houses into one is undoubtedly advantageous in suitable cases, but it is seldom practicable unless both houses are in the same ownership and care must be taken not to reduce unnecessarily the available housing accommodation. I do not think it is necessary to bring the matter specially to the attention of local authorities; my hon. Friend's question will be of assistance.

TENANTS' MEANS.

Mr. JOEL: 18.
asked the Minister of Health the names and the number of towns which are adopting a means test in connection with the actual tenants of grant-aided houses under their control?

Sir H. YOUNG: Any inquiries which a local authority may make for the purpose of fixing the rents of individual houses or granting rebates to tenants is a matter within their discretion, and as
to which no returns have to be made to my Department. I am not, therefore, in a position to supply the information required.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 21.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state for the latest available date the number of houses in England and Wales per 1,000 of the population and, for comparison, the corresponding numbers at the dates of the Censuses of 1911 and 1921?

Sir H. YOUNG: The estimated number in September, 1933, was 245.8. The corresponding numbers at the Censuses of 1911 and 1921 were 214.9 and 211.9 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY, BELFAST.

Mr. McKEAG: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any part of the Exchequer contribution is being utilised by the Government of Ulster, either directly or indirectly, in assisting the Belfast shipbuilding industry, whether by way of subsidy or other direct facilities to the shipbuilders concerned or by the granting of loans at low rates of interest to shipping firms proposing to place orders in Belfast?

Commander SOUTHBY: I have been asked to reply. The revenues of the Northern Ireland Government are derived from the proceeds of taxes levied in Northern Ireland and the only grants made are for specific purposes, such as the equalisation of the unemployment charge between the two countries. There is no general Exchequer contribution which could be used in the manner suggested in the question. As regards shipbuilding I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on the 5th February from which he will see that the only facilities are those afforded to shipowners under the Loan Guarantee Acts in the form of the guarantee, but not the grant, of certain loans for capital construction.

Mr. McKEAG: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in answer to a question in the Ulster Senate on Tuesday of this week a statement was made by a member of the Northern Ireland Govern-
ment to the effect that over £12,000,000 is guaranteed for shipbuilding purposes in Northern Ireland on the understanding that orders are placed in the Belfast shipyards; and whether he does not consider this a discrimination in favour of the Belfast shipyards as against such shipyards as are situated on the Tyne and the Clyde and elsewhere in this country?

Mr. SOMERSET: Is it not a fact that all that the Northern Government do is to guarantee to the banks who advance money to shipbuilders such money as is necessary to go on with the contract; and is it not a fact that having built the ships they have a lien on them?

Mr. DICKIE: Is not this a form of indirect subsidy, and, therefore, may I ask what form of protection can be given to English and Scottish shipbuilding for the same sort of constructional work?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers, and in the answer there is a recital of the true facts of the case.

Mr. McKEAG: Arising out of the reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on this question.

DISTILLING INDUSTRY.

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantities of malt, unmalted grain, rice, and molasses used in distilling in the year ended 30th September, 1933, and also the output in proof gallons?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The quantities of malt, unmalted grain, rice and molasses used in distilling and the number of proof gallons of spirits distilled in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, during the year ended 30th September, 1933, are as follow:

Materials used.


Cwt.


Malt
…
…
287,559


Unmalted grain
…
…
845,389


Rice
…
…
—


Molasses
…
…
4,271,258





Proof gallons.


Spirits distilled
…
…
35,502,635

FILMS (IMPORT DUTY).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the amount realised by the duties on foreign films during last year; and whether he will consider raising the import duty to 8d. per negative foot which is the duty imposed by Australia?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As regards the first part of the question, the revenue derived from the duty on exposed cinematograph films imported from foreign countries during the year ended 31st December, 1933, was approximately £94,000; as regards the second part, the relevant considerations in regard to this duty, in common with other Customs duties, are brought under review in connection with the Budget.

Sir P. DAWSON: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the amount of film which was imported during the last year from the United States of America and the amount imported from other countries, also the amount produced in Great Britain; and the amount paid for the hire of films to the United States of America and other foreign countries during the year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Such figures as are available regarding imports of films and production in this country would furnish no basis for comparison. The only comparable figures relate to registrations of British and foreign films under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, and the footages of such films registered in 1933 are as follow:

British films (including 69,777 feet made overseas in the British Empire)
…
1,202,197


United States films
…
3,583,428


Other foreign films
…
190,067

Certain films, such as news reels and educational and scientific films are not required to be registered and no information is available as to the relative amounts produced and imported.

Precise information regarding the payments made abroad in respect of film royalties is not available but the amount for 1933 was probably of the order of £6,000,000, this sum being mostly payable to the United States.

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (ANGLO-JAPANESE DISCUSSIONS).

Major PROCTER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent resolution passed by the Japanese textile organisations concerning the unacceptability of the British proposals regarding the countries to be included in the negotiations of the Anglo-Japanese conference in London, he is now in a position to make a statement?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the Lancashire-Japan textile negotiations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The discussions between the representatives of the United Kingdom and Japanese cotton and rayon industries are still proceeding, and I cannot in these circumstances appropriately make any statement on the matter.

Major PROCTER: Seeing that these negotiations are being stretched out to a very great length, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that notice should now be given to terminate the 1911 Anglo-Japanese Treaty, including the most-favoured- nation clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the question to which the hon. Member has had an answer.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it that the Board of Trade are in close contact with these negotiations and are giving all the help that they can?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May the House be assured that the Government are watching these negotiations and affording the textile delegation the fullest assistance which lies in their power, and that they are endorsing—

Hon. MEMBERS: Speech.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Exactly the same question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has already been answered.

NEW FACTORIES.

Mr. STOURTON: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many
factories have been built since the inception of the National Government; the number of workers they employ; and the number of factories in course of construction?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to a survey made by the Board of Trade of industrial development in 1932, 646 new factories were established in that year. The number of workers employed in these factories at the end of April, 1933, was 44,750. A similar survey for the year 1933 is in course of preparation but is not yet complete. I have no information as to the number of new factories established between the inception of the National Government and the end of 1931, nor as to the number of factories now in course of construction.

Mr. STOURTON: Can my right hon. Friend state how many of these new enterprises are controlled by foreign capital?

Viscountess ASTOR: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House that he is considering the appointment of additional factory inspectors in view of the increased number of factories?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In making surveys of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we also get figures and facts relating to the factories that have been closed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the same question is put down with regard to factories that have been closed as with regard to factories that have been opened, I shall be glad to get the information.

Mr. MAXTON: How do the two figures compare? Are we up or down on the exchange?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are going up in every direction.

Mr. STOURTON: May I have an answer to my question, as to whether my right hon. Friend can explain how many of these new enterprises are controlled by foreign capital?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I could not do that without notice.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his offer to co-operate with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in an ex-
amination of the most-favoured-nation clause has yet resulted in any practical action?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not yet received any further proposals on this subject from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

MEAT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS (BACON).

Mr. MANDER: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, as a result of the Government's restrictions on bacon imports, the price of bacon has risen 3d. per pound; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the price of bacon is now higher than it was before measures were taken to regulate imports. I would remind the hon. Member that, as has frequently been explained to the House, those measures were expressly designed to secure an improvement in wholesale prices.

Mr. MANDER: Is the price of bacon one of the things that is going up in all directions?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the cost of living is actually going down?

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the communication from the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce, amongst other chambers, urging the appointment of a special committee to investigate the best method of dealing with Japanese competition; and whether he will treat this question as a matter of urgency?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have replied to the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce explaining why, in my view, the appointment of a special committee in relation to Japanese competition is not likely to serve any useful purpose. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that letter. I have since received another letter from the chamber which I am considering.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is more than one method of dealing with this competition, and in view of the very strong feeling on the subject, will he not re-
consider the question of appointing a neutral and impartial committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have always kept in mind the fact that import duties are one way of dealing with it.

OATS AND BARLEY (IMPORTS).

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 47 and 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the combined total of oats imported from Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics between 13th January, when the new rates of duty became effective, and the end of February; and how does this figure compare with the corresponding one for 1933;
(2) what is the combined total of oat-meal imported from Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics between 13th January and the end of February; and how does this figure compare with the corresponding one for 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable to furnish the desired information, since statistics of trade are not compiled for periods of less than a calendar month and the particulars for February are not yet available.

Captain RAMSAY: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total imports of barley from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the first two months of this year; and how does this figure compare with that for the corresponding period of 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The required particulars will not be available until the 14th March, on which date they will be published in the issue for February of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."

HERRING (RUSSIAN PURCHASES).

Mr. BURNETT: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of barrels of herring from the autumn 1933 catch that have been purchased by the Russian authorities as a result of the Russian Trade Agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): So far as I am aware, Soviet buyers have not yet purchased any herring since the conclusion of the Trade Agreement, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the state-
ment I made on the subject of herring purchases in the Debate on 1st March.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS): 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Import Duties Advisory Committee has yet resumed its inquiry into the future of the Silk Duties?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The position remains as stated in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) on the 5th December last.

CUSTOMS (IMPORTERS' DEPOSITS).

Mr. REA (for Mr. PICKERING): 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state, as at a recent convenient date, the aggregate sum of money deposited with the Customs Department by importers pending decisions as to the amount of customs duties leviable on the articles imported?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the information requested is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ECONOMY CUTS.

Captain CAZALET: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of restoring the full cuts imposed by the second Budget of 1931, including full restoration to the unemployed, based on the figures prevailing on 1st January this year or at the most convenient date?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In a reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Keighley (Captain Watt) on the 23rd November the total cost of restoring the cuts to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was stated as about £23,000,000. A revision of this calculation at the present time would show a slightly lower figure and some part of the total cost would fall on the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Captain CAZALET: May I ask whether that figure includes or excludes the reduction in the pay of civil servants fixed on the cost-of-living basis?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have answered the question on the Paper as to what will be the cost to the Exchequer to restore the cuts.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE RECEIPTS, 1933.

Mr. R. RUSSELL: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total net receipts for Customs and Excise during the calendar year 1933 in respect of beer (home-made and imported), spirits (home-made and imported), wine, and sweets (including British wines)?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The approximate net receipts of duty for the year ended 31st December, 1933, on beer (home-made and imported), spirits (home-made and imported), wine and sweets (including British wine) are as follow:—

£


Beer—home-made
…
…
56,707,000


Beer—imported
…
…
5,321,000


Spirits—home-made
…
…
29,825,000


Spirits—imported
…
…
4,466,000


Wine
…
…
4,069,000


Sweets (including British wine)
…
…
291,000

FOREIGN LOANS.

Mr. BURNETT: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to continue permanently the embargo upon the issue of foreign loans to 58 foreign States now in default; and whether he is aware that British export trade created by the former loans to those States has not benefited the country, in view of the fact that the goods exported have been paid for by British money subscribed to foreign loans now worthless?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, South-Western (Sir A. McLean), on the 20th February.

Mr. BURNETT: Is the hon. Member aware that for several years past a portion of the British export trade which appears in the Board of Trade Returns is really a national loss and not a gain owing to the default of foreigners?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend can be reassured that before any fresh decision is taken in regard to the embargo the matter will be examined in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) ACT.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that under the provisions of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, ex-Service men in Ireland who had served in the Great War were promised a cottage free of rent and two statute acres of land, and that by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State ex-Service men in the Irish Free State have been confirmed in possession; will he state why ex-Service men in Northern Ireland have been, and are being, evicted; and will he take steps, by Regulations or otherwise, to ensure that no less favourable treatment will be given to ex-Service men in Northern Ireland than obtains in the Irish Free State?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, as the Act mentioned does not contain any promise of the kind suggested. The Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust is being administered in Northern Ireland in accordance with the relevant Statutes, the interpretation of which, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, is not affected by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I ask whether the Irish Free State Supreme Court has not decided that these cottages and land should be given rent free to ex-Service men to whom they were promised during the War?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That may be so.

Mr. GRAHAM: If that is so, is there any reason why there should be a discrimination against ex-Service men in Northern Ireland?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I answered that question when I said that what happens in Northern Ireland is not affected by any decision of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State. I am informed that
certain tenants in Northern Ireland are bringing actions against the Trust in this matter, and it is therefore sub judice.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not rather peculiar that an Act of Parliament of this House to give land to ex-Service men in Ireland should be interpreted in one sense in one part of Ireland, and operated in that sense, and interpreted in a different sense in another part of Ireland, and acted upon in that sense? Cannot something be done by the Parliament which passed the Act to see that it is interpreted in the spirit in which it was passed by this House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Member desires me to reply, there are, of course, many contrasts in this world about which we have our own opinion. As it is a question of the facts, I have stated them.

Mr. MACLEAN: But facts which are laid down by an Act of Parliament cannot operate in one direction in one part of the country and in an entirely different direction in another part of the country?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is not the real position this, that the Irish Free State has defaulted; and is that any reason why Ulster should default as well?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the Ulster Government have defaulted to ex-Service men?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the serious position of the poultry industry in the country since prices for eggs, for the corresponding time of year, are lower than at any similar period since 1914; and whether he will consider adopting a drastic cut in foreign imports?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The report of the market supply committee on the question whether any, and if so what, additional steps should be taken by way of regulation of imports to assist the home egg industry, was submitted to
the Ministers concerned yesterday. It is being taken into immediate consideration.

Sir G. FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether it is possible to stop eggs being sold as new laid when they are imported from the other side of the equator?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that question arises.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is not the ultimate aim of the Minister of Agriculture to increase the production of eggs in this country sufficient to meet the consumption?

PIGS.

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that many pig curers at the present time are unable to obtain any pigs for the purpose of carrying out their contracts as a consequence of the marketing scheme; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. ELLIOT: The last contract period expired on 28th February, and it was found necessary owing to the new principles embodied in the contracts for the current period to extend the closing date for the registration of these contracts to 12th March. The Pigs Marketing Board are taking all possible steps to overcome any difficulty which may have arisen owing to this extension and to ensure that curers receive immediate supplies of pigs under the new contracts.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that pig curers to-day, this week, and next week, cannot get any pigs at all?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it not a fact that a certain clause in the contract is causing a great deal of delay in contracts being made?

Mr. ELLIOT: That scarcely arises out of the question on the Paper, but I can assure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) that the Pig Board is taking all steps to secure a supply of pigs for the curers.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not notorious that this Socialist scheme has broken down altogether?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate difference between the maximum number
of pigs which could be used for bacon purposes by existing British bacon factories during the past year and the number of pigs which were actually available for such purpose; and how such maximum capacity of existing British bacon factories compares with the present average annual consumption by the British public of bacon?

Mr. ELLIOT: The maximum capacity of the bacon factories in Great Britain is estimated at between 3,500,000 and 4,000,000 pigs per annum. I have no information as to the number of pigs which were actually available at the factories for curing during 1933, but the number of pigs which registered pig producers contracted to supply during the four months November, 1933, to February, 1934, was approximately 588,000. The capacity of the factories in 1933 was about 40 per cent. of the present average annual consumption of bacon in Great Britain.

Mr. L. SMITH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a shortage of bacon factories in the country, and will he give this matter consideration?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is essential first to get full supplies for the factories that are operating.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman still complaining of his likeness to the Pied Piper of Hamelin?

"V.C." DOG COLLARS.

Sir PERCY HURD: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if his attention has been drawn to the action of a London newspaper in awarding a so-called V.C. collar to dogs; and whether he will take steps to prevent any action that may detract from the dignity of the Victoria Cross?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The newspaper scheme mentioned by my hon. Friend has been going on for over three years. The initials V.C. are normally quoted in inverted commas in this connection by the newspaper in question, and while I deprecate the practice as a matter of taste, I cannot think that in the mind of the public it detracts from the dignity of the Victoria Cross.

SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (EMPLOYES).

Mr. PETHERICK: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain and inform the House of the number of employés of the Suez Canal Company other than pilots or directors who are of British, French, and other foreign nationalities?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I am endeavouring to obtain this information and shall be glad to let my hon. Friend know the result of the inquiries.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the obligations imposed upon member States of the League of Nations in regard to their representation at the International Labour Office of the League of Nations; and whether there is any means of ensuring that the workmen's representatives on any of the commissions of the International Labour Office shall be given facilities by their respective Governments for attending at Geneva when their presence is necessary in the interest of the workmen they are authorised to represent?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT copies of Articles 389 and 390 of the Treaty of Versailles, which deal with the composition of the International Labour Conference, and of Article 393, which deals with the appointment and constitution of the Governing Body.
The Treaty contains no provisions regarding the attendance of particular individuals at meetings held under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation.

Following are the Articles mentioned:

TREATY OF VERSAILLES.

Article 389.

Article 390.

Article 393.

EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLIES).

Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Captain ELLISTON): 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will direct the attention of local education authorities to the memorandum on Bovine Tuberculosis in Man, issued by the Ministry of Health, with a recommendation that milk provided for school children should be certified Grade A (tuberculin tested) or efficiently pasteurised?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Attention was called to the Ministry of Health memorandum on Bovine Tuberculosis in Man, which was issued in 1931, on page 54 of the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education on the Health of the School Child, for 1930. It is the practice of the board, in approving proposals by local education authorities for the provision of milk to school children, to urge the authority to make every effort to secure a supply of pasteurised or tuberculin tested milk.

Captain HEILGERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is very difficult to obtain Grade A tuberculin tested milk any more, in view of the fact that the medical profession have a preference for dirty milk pasteurised, and that that preference has nearly killed the production of clean milk in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

WATER SUPPLES (SCHOOLS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 14.
asked the Minister of Health whether the conditions
governing the distribution of the grants-in-aid of rural water supplies will make it compulsory for provision to be made in every case, except where this is shown to be impracticable, for a piped supply of drinking water to any schools in an aided area which is not now provided with a satisfactory water service?

Sir H. YOUNG: Rural district councils have no power to compel school authorities to take a supply from their mains. The Ministry in dealing with applications for approval of rural water schemes take steps to secure that the proposed water supply will be available to schools, where necessary and practicable, and this practice will be continued in dealing with grant applications.

Viscountess ASTOR: Where it is necessary, surely it is practicable that school children should get a decent clean water supply.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Captain JAMES MacANDREW (for Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON): 19.
asked the Minister of Health the decline in mortality from tuberculosis since 1851 and since 1911; and whether any European country can show a comparable decline in mortality from the same cause since 1911?

Sir H. YOUNG: On the basis of the standardised death rates for all forms of tuberculosis annually published in the Registrar-General's Statistical Review, the 1932 mortality in England and Wales was approximately 56 per cent. of that in 1911 and 22½ per cent. only of the corresponding mortality of the quinquennium 1851–5. Comparable figures for other European countries are not completely available; but it would appear that no less improvement has been experienced in certain other countries.

NORRIS GREEN, LIVERPOOL (SWIMMING FACILITIES).

Sir J. HASLAM (for Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM): 22.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Norris Green Housing Estate, Liverpool, with a population of 30,000, of which 10,000 are scholars attending the schools in the area, are not provided with swimming-baths facilities and the children are deprived of swimming instruction and recreation; and will he confer with the
local authority concerned with a view to facilitating this work?

Sir H. YOUNG: As my hon. Friend is aware, the provision of a swimming bath is a matter within the discretion of the city council, but I am communicating with them to ascertain the present circumstances.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS).

Mr. McKEAG (for Mr. HOLDS-WORTH): 16.
asked the Minister of Health what answer he has given to the representations made to him by the National Conference of Friendly Societies regarding the maladministration by the public assistance committee of the London County Council of Section 48 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, resulting in members of friendly societies having their sickness benefit wholly included in error when incomes were being assessed or the needs test being applied; and whether, in view of what has happened in London, he will issue a special instruction on the subject to all public assistance committees?

Sir H. YOUNG: The legal issues raised in these representations are now under consideration.

Mr. McKEAG: Is it proposed to take any steps to make payments to members of these friendly societies of the money of which they have been deprived by this action on the part of the public assistance committees concerned?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will consider my answer he will see that I can add nothing to-day, but perhaps he will put the question down again.

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a number of local authorities in Scotland are ignoring Section 105 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, which provides that public assistance committees, in granting out-door relief to a person entitled to receive benefit under the National Health Insurance Act shall not take into consideration the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit in assessing incomes for relief; what action he intends to take to compel local authorities to conform to the law; how many local authorities have been communicated
with by the Department of Health; and how many have given effect to the Act of 1924?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Department of Health for Scotland have communicated with 21 local authorities regarding their failure to observe the requirements of Section 105 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924. In the case of 14 the failure related to particular cases which have now been satisfactorily adjusted. Of the remainder five have formally agreed to observe the requirements of the section and with two the Department are still in correspondence.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What steps are the Government taking to get local authorities to carry out the law; and why should all these negotiations, extending over years, be carried on with local authorities to get them to observe the ordinary law?

Mr. SKELTON: The facts as I stated in the answer are that almost without exception local authorities are carrying out the law. My hon. Friend is aware that one of the difficulties was that this particular provision was not in the Poor Law of Scotland but was in the Insurance Act. We are remedying that by including it in the new Poor Law Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What steps are being taken to see that the authorities which are not carrying out the law are compelled to do so; and is there any redress for anyone who has been refused this money over a period of time because the authorities have not carried out the law?

Mr. SKELTON: With regard to the individual case, any person who is aggrieved may appeal against inadequate relief; but where the authority, on the other hand, passes a formal resolution that they will not have regard to the law, that is dealt with first by negotiations, and, if there is resistance, it will be dealt with by the necessary legal steps. So far we have settled all the outstanding cases.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that authorities have no right under Section 105 (1) to make this deduction of 7s. 6d., and that if a person
does not state the amount of his income he can be imprisoned for giving false information?

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Poor Law of England. I am dealing with Scotland.

Mr. LOGAN: Am I not right in saying that the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, applied to Scotland as well as to England?

Mr. SKELTON: That is so, but not the proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it that in future these local authorities will be told to inform themselves of the National Health Insurance scheme, and that if they do not carry out their duties will the Secretary of State appoint a Commission to see that they do?

Mr. SKELTON: Under the law of Scotland that is not possible, nor is it in my opinion necessary. If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see how satisfactorily the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I give notice that on the first available opportunity I will raise this matter, and also the question of subsidies on housing.

HEALTH INSURANCE DOCTORS (REMUNERATION).

Major MILLS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health on how many occasions the panel doctors have had reductions made in their remuneration since 1921; what was the percentage of each such reduction; and the estimated saving to the Exchequer on each?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The capitation fee payable to insurance doctors was, by agreement with the British Medical Association, reduced from 11s. to 9s. 6d. per insured person as from the 1st January, 1922, and, after reference to a court of inquiry, from 9s. 6d. to 9s. as from the 1st January, 1924. The fee of 9s. was made subject to an economy
deduction of 10 per cent., as from the 1st October, 1931. The amount of the saving effected by a reduction of the capitation fee depends necessarily on the number of insured persons entitled to medical benefit, which varies from year to year. The total saving accruing to the National Health Insurance funds of England and Wales in the first year of the first reduction was approximately £995,000, and the saving in the first year of the second reduction was approximately £342,000. The Exchequer proportion of these sums is approximately £221,000 and £76,000 respectively. The whole of the saving effected by the economy deduction of 10 per cent. enures to the benefit of the Exchequer, and the saving in England and Wales in 1932 amounted to approximately £715,000.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Mr. JOHN (for Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS): 34.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons in receipt of pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, in England and Wales, and whether it is intended to introduce legislation to grant them the old age pension in addition on reaching 70 years of age?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of persons in England and Wales in receipt of a pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, at the end of 1933 was 22,167. I am unable to hold out any hope of legislation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING COMMITTEES PROCEDURE).

Mr. CAPORN (for Sir A. WILSON): 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to expedite the work of Standing Committees, he will propose to this House the adoption of the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1932 that power to select amendments should be given to all chairmen of Standing Committees?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 29th January last in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and to consider Votes A, 1, 10 and 2 in Committee.
Tuesday: The remaining stages of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill, the Rural Water Supplies Bill, and Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill; Committee stage of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, and the Second Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill.
Wednesday: Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, Report stage (2nd allotted day). The Debate of which notice has been given will be on foreign affairs.
Thursday: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates, and to consider Votes A, 1, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in Committee of Supply.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
During the week it is hoped to conclude the remaining stages of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill.
On any day when time permits other Orders may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister to look again at Tuesday's business? It is a very large amount of business for one day. The Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill has caused a good deal of unsuspected debate. It kept the House very late last night.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): That was on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. ATTLEE: But the Prime Minister will realise that as the Bill deals with India it is likely to cause sudden interventions and unexpected debate. It is a very large programme of business for that day. Further, I would ask the Prime Minister for what reason the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule is being moved, whether only for the purpose of getting Vote A?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Before the Prime Minister answers, may I reinforce what has been said with regard to Tuesday's business. There are several Bills which will take some time. There is the North Atlantic Shipping Bill to be considered in Committee, and the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill has been put down for Second Reading as the fifth Order, Seeing that this Bill raises very important matters, which have attracted a good deal of attention in various quarters inside the House and outside, does the Prime Minister think that its Second Reading, which provides the chief occasion on which the whole policy can be discussed, should be the fifth Order? Might it not be put down as first Order on that day, or put down as first Order on some subsequent day?

Mr. TINKER: The Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill is likely to take some considerable time, and we on this side do not wish to be urged to get over certain business in order to get on with other Bills.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) fell into something of an error about the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill. That Bill went through previously in about 20 minutes. We shall certainly take all these representations into account, as we always do when announcing a fairly full programme for any one day, but we would like to get on with these Bills, and we hope the House will co-operate with us in getting the programme through.

Sir H. SAMUEL: May we take it from that that the particular Bill to which I referred will not be taken at a late hour of the evening?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that we have often heard
the right hon. Gentleman's sugar bounty speech?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the intention of the Government to enter upon the Debate on that Bill at an unusually late hour. With reference to the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-day, we should like to get items 1 and 2 on the Order Paper, and also No. 3. No. 3, however, is an exempted Order, so that the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule applies only to items 1 and 2.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I call attention to the fact that the last discussion on Air Estimates did not finish until 1 o'clock in the morning, and that other business had to be taken at an extremely late hour? The House is being worked extremely hard.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the House will remember that when Items 2 and 3 were before us at an earlier stage the House rose early. I think it will be possible to get these three Orders at a reasonably early hour.

Mr. MAXTON: I did not hear any mention of a day next week for the further stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and as nothing has been done this week, I would like to ask if the Government have abandoned the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very happy to say that the answer to that question is in the negative.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 31.

Division No. 149.]
AYES.
[3.38 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bernays, Robert
Burnett, John George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Albery, Irving James
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Apsley, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Christie, James Archibald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Buchan, John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Clarke, Frank


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Burgle, Dr. Edward Leslie
Clarry, Reginald George




Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cooke, Douglas
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Copeland, Ida
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rickards, George William


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jamieson, Douglas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crossley, A. C.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lees-Jones, John
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dlckie, John P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Doran, Edward
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Dunglass, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Eden, Robert Anthony
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, Thomas


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McKeag, William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maitland, Adam
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stones, James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Goff, Sir Park
Mitcheson, G. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Train, John


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Morrison, William Shepherd
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grimston, R, V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
White, Henry Graham


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Patrick, Colln M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Womersley, Walter James


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Procter, Major Henry Adam



Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pybus, Sir Percy John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Radford, E. A.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)





NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, morgan (caerphilly)


Banfield, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert


Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cape, Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James




Price, Gabriel
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah



Thorne, William James
William, Edward John (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr.John and Mr. Groves.

BILLS REPORTED.

CHURCH HOUSE (WESTMINSTER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the spreading of disease among salmon and freshwater fish in Great Britain." [Diseases of Fish Bill [Lords.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1934.

Sir PHILIP SASSOON'S STATEMENT

Order for Committee read

3.48 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I cannot help feeling that I have before me this afternoon a far from easy task. I know that there are in this House two diametrically opposed schools of thought who differ with great earnestness and vigour upon the Fighting Services in general and upon the Royal Air Force in particular. Perhaps the divergence between these two schools is more acute at the present time than it has ever been before. On the one hand, there are those who regard the Air arm as an imminent threat to the survival of our present day civilisation and would like to see all military aircraft swept out of existence. On the other hand, there are those who consider that the provisions which His Majesty's Government have made for the air defences of this Island are utterly inadequate and who would like to see a large and immediate increase in the number of our service machines. I trust that hon. Members, to whatever school of thought they may belong, will bear with me while I endeavour to the best of my ability to expound the policy envisaged in these Estimates. At all events, I hope that I shall be able to persuade that body of moderate opinion which is the strength of this House that the Government are taking a proper and reasonable course, in circumstances of extreme difficulty and delicacy. If so, I shall be well content.
The House will have observed that the Estimates which I present to-day disclose, for the first time after the sacrifices of recent years, a modest upward trend. The net figure of £17,561,000 shows an increase of £135,000 only. A truer picture is provided this year by a comparison of the gross Estimates. These, at £20,165,000, show an increase of £527,000. The reason for this is two-fold. In the first place, as a result of the deliberations of the recently appointed Tri-
bunal on Indian Defence Expenditure, we are getting an extra £100,000 from India this year in respect of the initial training, etc., in this country of Royal Air Force personnel serving on the Indian establishment. In the second place, the bulk of the expenditure on the Fleet Air Arm is borne under the current arrangements by Navy Votes, and does not appear in our net total, but only in our gross figures as a grant-in-aid.
For this moderate increase in expenditure the country is going to get, as explained in my Noble Friend's Memorandum, four new squadrons—two for home defence, one new flying boat squadron, and the equivalent of one squadron for the Fleet Air Arm. In addition, two home defence squadrons now forming part of one of our experimental establishments will be reconstituted and given separate entities. Thus, though the nominal increase in our first-line strength will be four squadrons, we shall in reality be getting an effective increase of six squadrons. This increase, moderate as it is, will no doubt be deplored by those Members who are undeterred by our present position of unilateral disarmament in the air, while it will be regarded as wholly inadequate by no small number of others. Before turning to the details of the Estimates I should like, therefore, very briefly to review the circumstances and considerations which have led His Majesty's Government to adopt this particular course.
In the first place, as it is scarcely necessary to remind the House, the pressing need of economy, which has left its mark on all the Estimates of recent years, still persists. Obviously it would be undesirable that the tide of returning prosperity should be checked or thrown back by too early or too lavish an increase in the scale of national expenditure. Secondly, and no less obviously, the world has reached a critical point of extreme delicacy in the matter of disarmament. Last year I expressed the hope that, by the time the next Estimates came round, the Disarmament Conference would have come to some satisfactory agreement for the limitation and reduction of air armaments. That has not yet occurred. I need not enlarge upon the perils and misfortunes which would inevitable follow from uncon-
trolled competitive development in the air. They are present to the mind of every Member of the House, and they are terrible to contemplate.
Throughout all the discussions which have taken place on the subject, we have been foremost in advocating general disarmament in the air to the lowest level on which international agreement can be secured. We have put forward definite proposals to that end. We have followed a policy of studious moderation in regard to disarmament for over 15 years. That period is substantially longer than Jacob served for Rachel, and we have not even had the doubtful consolation of acquiring a Leah by the way. Far from accepting our proposals, and farther yet from following our example, other nations have increased their air armaments steadily, until they far outnumber ours. That is not the whole story. The latest developments are still more striking. The President of the United States recently authorised an additional expenditure of £3,000,000 for the purchase of new aircraft for the American Naval and Military Air Services. Russia and Japan are also largely expanding their air forces. The intentions of Russia are indicated by a Red Army Order of the 18th August, 1933, signed by the War Minister, Voroshilov. It is as follows:
Technically equipped, confident of its force, stands the Red Air Fleet at the gates of its future, intently and energetically working on the completion of its historical task—to overtake and surpass the capitalist countries most advanced in aviation.
Increased funds for air armaments have also been provided by a long list of other countries, including Italy, Belgium, Switzerland and Czechoslovakia; while, of our own Dominions, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand have authorised a considerable increase in their air expenditure for the coming year. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government feel that it is no longer possible to postpone further the 10-year old programme of 1923, which is already so long overdue for completion. They feel that we cannot any longer accept a position of continuing inferiority in the air. We have made it plain that this country must, so long as air forces exist, have parity in the air, howsoever that parity may be attained. This does not mean that we have in any way abandoned our belief in the advantages of general air disarmament. We have recently submitted to the
principal European Air Powers a Disarmament Memorandum which would have the effect of stabilising the leading air forces of the world on a parity basis at a figure which would entail considerable reductions in all the leading air forces, including our own. We stand by that memorandum. We shall continue to use all the arguments and all the influence that we can command to persuade other nations to adopt it, or some other scheme framed on similar lines. But the time has come when we can no longer ignore the fact that, whereas all nations talk about disarmament, hardly any other nations except ourselves are doing anything but increasing their air armaments. Therefore, if other nations will not come down to our level, our national and Imperial security demands that we shall build up towards theirs.
These Estimates, therefore, in broad outline, are the outcome of our desire to pursue disarmament and to study economy on the one hand, and, on the other, of our reluctant conviction that the policy of postponement cannot be continued. Resumption of the scheme of 1923 has become inevitable. But we do not want to put forward a programme of construction which might prove to be the starting gun for a race in air armaments. In the interests of world peace, the initial measure of advance which is indicated in these Estimates is designedly placed within the most modest bounds.
Let me now say a few words on the details of the Estimates themselves. Vote 1, which provides for the pay of the personnel of the Royal Air Force, shows a net increase of £100,000. This increase is partly artificial, due to certain bookkeeping transfers between Votes, as has been explained in my Noble Friend's Memorandum. Vote 2, which covers non-technical stores, transportation, etc., has been very largely reduced during recent years as a result of lower prices, and this year it remains static. Vote 3 comprises over 40 per cent. of total air expenditure, and is, indeed, the dominant Vote of the Estimates. It provides for that technical equipment which is so vital to the Service. This year there is a gross increase of £300,000 in the Vote which, I feel sure, will be welcomed by many hon. Members, because £250,000 of it means that we are ordering a larger number of new machines and engines than last year. It will, I hope,
not be unwelcome to the remainder of the House, in that it means also that we shall 1be giving increased employment.
Vote 4, for works, buildings and lands, shows this year a net addition of £65,060, but it is still more than £100,000 lower than it was in 1931. This increase is primarily due to provision for the further development of the new air base at Dhibban, in Iraq, with regard to which it may well be that hon. Members would like a few words of explanation. I should say, first, that Article 5 of the Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and Iraq, of 30th June, 1930, specifically provides for the construction of "an air base to be selected by His Britannic Majesty to the West of the Euphrates." We are bound by that provision; but I may say at once that there are several very great advantages, from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, in the transfer from the present air base at Hinaidi. The site at Dhibban, which is too isolated according to some people, is, after all, only 50 miles from Bagdad, half an hour, that is, by air, and two hours by road, which is considerably nearer, shall I say, than my own constituency of Hythe is to Westminster. It was selected after the most exhaustive consideration of all possible alternative sites. Strategically, it is definitely preferable to Hinaidi. It has an easy line of communication running westwards to Transjordan and Palestine through desert country readily negotiable by modern motor transport and inhabited but sparsely by friendly tribes. It is considered to be materially safer than the alternative line of communication between Bagdad and Basra, which passes through areas closely inhabited by powerful tribes who have been active insurgents in past disturbances in Iraq. Moreover, Dhibban lies west of the rivers which would have to be crossed by hostile tribesmen coming from most quarters of Iraq, and the bridgeheads of which we could easily control—not, of course, that we have any reason to anticipate any trouble under present conditions.
I am glad to add—and this is my last word on this particular subject—that the cost of the change-over is not in reality nearly so formidable as the figure of £1,450,000 at which it stands in these Estimates. The net capital cost, in fact, should not exceed £350,000. If we had
stayed on at Hinaidi and Mosul, we would have been compelled to spend at least another £750,000 at an early date on reconstruction. This does not mean, of course, that when these stations are transferred to the Iraq Government they will have to pay anything like that sum. Their requirements are altogether different from ours, both in kind and in quantity. Moreover, under the arrangements agreed with the Iraq Government, we shall receive for these stations £350,000. In addition, with the concentration of the Royal Air Force at two stations only, there will naturally be a considerable saving in administrative and maintenance costs.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it will be nearer the Assyrians or further from the Assyrians?

Sir P. SASSOON: It depends where the Assyrians are.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is anyone more likely to know where the remains of the Assyrians are than the British Air Force? Do you know where they are?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that I can answer that question. I do not think that it applies to this Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How are you protecting them?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think that the only other Vote on which I need comment at this stage is Vote 8, for civil aviation, which stands at £513,000, representing the highest level at which it has stood for the past 10 years. I hope to be able to satisfy the House in due course that we shall be getting good value for the increase in this Vote.
If in this brief review I have missed any points upon which hon. Members would like to have further information, no doubt these matters will be raised in the course of the Debate, and I shall have an opportunity of replying at the end of the evening. Meanwhile, I am sure that the House would like to hear something about the work of the Royal Air Force and of the development of civil aviation during the past year. At the outset of this part of my speech I feel that I ought to refer to the tragic loss which the Royal Air Force sustained very shortly after the Estimates were pre-
sented last year. On 27th April, barely four weeks after his appointment as Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond died in hospital. The House, I know, will join with me in deploring the grievous loss of this very distinguished man at the height of his career. As the House knows, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air has only recently returned from an air tour of all our overseas stations in Egypt, the Sudan, Transjordan, Palestine, Iraq and India, touring as far east as Calcutta. In the course of a very strenuous seven weeks, he covered over 16,000 miles, and came back looking as if he had just returned from an extended rest cure, and completely satisfied with the efficiency, good morale and good health of all the units which he visited.
Perhaps I may now say a few words about the activities of the Royal Air Force during 1933. There have been in the course of the past year several long distance flights by overseas units, in particular between Singapore and the North-West Frontier of India in both directions, and right across Africa. Altogether some 200,000 aircraft miles were covered in these flights during the year. As has been explained on previous occasions, these long distance flights have a very great deal to do in helping to maintain the efficiency of the service, and, without any additional expense, they supply valuable information for the future establishment of civil air lines. It is intended to continue these flights in the coming year, and, as far as possible, to see that they are accompanied by air-borne equipment and supplies. As illustrating the growing range of operations, I may mention, incidentally, that there have been many successful non-stop flights carried out in Iraq by standard land aircraft fitted with ordinary service long-range tanks. Some of these non-stop flights have covered distances of well over 1,000 miles. One particular interesting non-stop flight of a shorter duration was undertaken between Basra and Sharjar on the Persian Gulf. In addition to these more formally organised cruises, machines based on such centres as Basra and Aden have been constantly at work within their own normal radius of action, maintaining and developing communications, and extending those areas within which the Pax Britannica, brings order
and security to replace rapine and oppression.
Last year I sought to emphasise the fact that air power, notwithstanding that it was one of the most formidable weapons of war, also possessed immense potentialities for peace. My reward was that of those who seek to advocate, at a season when it still wears the resemblance of a paradox, something which in a few years' time is destined to become a truism. Those who disagreed with me tried to "blanket" my argument with ridicule, though every year brings fresh examples of the truth of what I said. It is not indeed by fighting locusts or dropping blankets, or even evacuating threatened civilians or carrying medical assistance to the sick and injured, that the Royal Air Force does its only work for peace, though the list of these humane activities is indeed a long one. In the establishment of the rule of law and in safeguarding the life, liberty and goods of the subject on the frontiers of our Empire, the policeman goes hand in hand with the philanthropist.
Perhaps the House will bear with me if I give one or two typical recent incidents to illustrate my argument. Only a few weeks ago the territory of a tribe nominally under our protection in the remote hinterland of Aden was overrun by hostile tribesmen from across the frontier. Hostages and loot were taken, and it seemed as if there might be a danger of the commencement of a regime of oppression from without, such as prevailed over a large part of the Protectorate before the advent of air control. A stern warning was issued that unless the hostages and loot were returned and all molestation brought to an immediate end, punitive air action would be taken against the frontier forts of the offenders. The warning was completely successful, and in the shortest possible space of time the loot and hostages were restored and all aggression ceased—and this without the firing of a single shot, the dropping of a single bomb, or the infliction of a single casualty. Another incident is reminiscent of that immortal combat which is chronicled in "Alice through the Looking Glass." Some of our aircraft were returning from an ordinary routine flight when they saw beneath them a tribal affray in full swing. A strong tribe from across the frontier had started an attack on one of the tribes under our
protection when our aircraft fortuitously arrived upon the scene. At the mere sight of the policeman, miraculously summoned, as they thought, at even shorter notice than usual, the raiders broke off the battle and dispersed with great rapidity. Readers of Lewis Carroll will remember how Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreed to have a battle, when the sudden advent of a monstrous bird so frightened both the heroes that they quite forgot their quarrel. In this case fact has improved upon fiction, because it was only the villains of the piece who were frightened into good behaviour.
It is instances like these, multiplied on all our frontiers, which have led His Majesty's Government to insist that police bombing in outlying districts shall be excepted from any general prohibition of bombing from the air. After all, the dropping of bombs is only the final stage of police action, and peace is usually restored without having to resort to force at all. The policeman's truncheon is infrequently brought into play and usually a mere "Move along there" suffices. On one occasion an address from the air by loud speakers, perhaps I should say very loud speakers, was singularly effective. If that fails, the attention of the offenders is brought to the truncheon before it is brought into play. That is to say, we drop dummy bombs as a warning. It is only after all these preliminary stages have failed to produce the result required that bombing is eventually resorted to. In the course of the past year I had occasion to collect together statistics showing how the use of air power has reduced and almost abolished the "blood bill" which, before the advent of the air arm, we used to have to pay as the price of an uncertain peace along the frontiers of our Empire. I will not weary the House with figures which are accessible to all and known to most, but I think in the light of those figures it is unthinkable that we should go back to the old method after our experience of the new. To do so would entail immense sacrifice of life on both sides—on our own just as well as on the enemy's. Humanity itself demands that, when the new instrument has shown its efficiency and its mercifulness over a period of 10 years, we should not wantonly abandon it.
Before turning to the subject of civil aviation, there are one or two developments in connection with the work of the Royal Air Force at home to which I should like to direct attention. In the first place, there has been going on during the past year an experiment of considerable interest at the present time. Since February of last year one of our squadrons has been operating upon petrol derived from British coal by the low temperature carbonisation process, and the results have been so very satisfactory that it has been decided to accept this particular kind of coal fuel as a normal supply. It is expected that there will be sufficient supplies of this coal fuel for the use of seven squadrons during the year. Hon. Members will rejoice, I feel sure, to know of this new outlet for British coal which, small as it is as yet, has definite possibilities of growth. Other experiments of general interest have been and are being conducted in connection with compression ignition engines running on heavy oil. Two aeroplanes driven by engines of this type were flown at the Royal Air Force display last year. As far as petrol engines are concerned, perhaps the most interesting development of the year is an air-cooled engine operating with sleeve valves instead of poppet valves. Constant experiments, in which our new and reconstructed wind tunnels are proving of the greatest possible service, have been conducted also in machine design with a view to increasing performance and the safety factor.
It is impossible in the time at my disposal to do full justice to the work, which I know interests the House so much, of research and technical development, interesting as it is and absolutely vital as it is in the development of commercial and military flying. But I should like publicly to acknowledge the immense assistance that we have received from outside scientists, and also the readiness with which so many distinguished men have placed their services at the disposal of the Air Ministry, either through the medium of the Committee of Aeronautical Research or by independent work at Oxford, Cambridge and other Universities. I should like also to say a word of praise for the two pilots who are carrying on the work of the great meteorological flight at Duxford. In all
weathers every day, all through the year, they fly to great heights and acquire knowledge of conditions in the upper atmosphere which are invaluable in the compilation of our weather forecasts, It is not at all unusual for one of these pilots to fly to a height of 20,000 feet through clouds all the way, lost in a world of mist, sky and earth equally invisible. He comes down again through the clouds, alights where he can and sends off his report. In the snowstorms of last week at a height of 10,000 feet they found a temperature of 50 degrees below freezing point but higher, at 15,000 feet, it was two degrees warmer, a presage of the milder weather that we had a few days later.
I should like to outline some of the principal new developments for which provision is taken in these Estimates from the point of view of civil aviation and to say something about the encouraging progress that has been made during the past year. His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Government of India, and through the agency of Imperial Airways, have organised our part of the route to Australia and now a regular weekly service is in operation as far as Singapore. The Australian Government have got before them tenders for the final Singapore-Australian section, and I have every hope that by the autumn the whole route will be in operation. Turning from East to West, a new project of considerable interest for which a provision of £10,000 is made in these Estimates is a weekly service between New York and Bermuda which is operated by Imperial Airways co-operating with American interests. Apart from its local importance, this new route is of particular interest in that it may very likely prove to be a first link in a trans-Atlantic service though, of course, we are making a close study, in conjunction with the Canadian and Newfoundland Governments, with regard to the alternative direct route via Newfoundland. Coming home, it used to be the fashion to say that there was little scope in these islands for what I might term domestic flying. I think latterly it has been obvious that that must be modified. There was an encouraging increase in internal air services last year, some 12 companies being in operation. I will not
say anything about the very important subject of aerodrome development, because I shall have an opportunity of replying later to an Amendment on the subject.
Generally, 1933 can be considered as a year of distinct progress on the part of British civil aviation. There has been an encouraging increase in the amount of passenger and mail traffic. Some 85 tons of mails were dealt with by Imperial Airways last year, compared with only 64 tons in 1932, an increase of 33⅓ per cent. Of the 91,000 passengers carried by all the Continental air services, Imperial Airways carried just under 50,000. These figures are a gratifying testimony to the reputation for comfort and safety established by Imperial Airways. Accidents must happen from time to time, unfortunately, in most forms of transport, but it is a great tribute to the record of Imperial Airways that Lloyds now accept the company's passengers at the same rate per day of air travel as for land and sea travel. No other air transport company enjoys the same favourable terms. A noteworthy characteristic of the 1933 passenger figures is the increasing use made of the company's services by business men. To give a single example, early in the year a passenger landed at Croydon who had paid business calls on clients in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Uganda, Rhodesia, Tanganyika and South Africa in 80 days. By the ordinary surface form of travel it would have taken him 180 days. The evidence of gradual economic recovery which we see in so many other directions, fortunately, to-day can also be found in civil aviation. There has been a healthy increase in the number of aircraft possessing certificates of air worthiness and the number of pilots' licences issued during the past year. One of them was that issued to the Secretary of State for Air. The light aeroplane club movement has also been showing very satisfactory progress under the improved and revised conditions which I announced to the House last March.
Before leaving the subject of civil aviation, I should like to say a few words on a subject which I know has been very much in the minds of some hon. Members for some time past. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) not long ago
made a speech in which he suggested that the question whether civil aviation should be taken away from the control of the Air Ministry requires investigation. My hon. and gallant Friend's speeches on air matters, as on all other matters, are always stimulating and instructive. The Royal Aero Club has accorded him the proud distinction of having made the first aeroplane flight in this country, and since that day he has never lost interest and has always been an acknowledged authority on all aeronautical matters. I agree that world civil aviation has laboured under the handicap of its association with military aviation, but I do not agree that it would improve things one whit in this country if civil aviation were taken from the control of the Air Ministry. It is abroad and not in this country that civil aviation is an adjunct of military power. In some foreign countries the development of commercial aviation has been coloured by the desire to create a reserve of aircraft and personnel suitable for military use, but the striking fact is that this policy was adopted in foreign countries at a time when civil aviation was still under a civil department and not under a military department at all. That policy has played havoc with economic development abroad, but it is not a policy that has ever been followed in this country.
The one goal that we have always set before Imperial Airways is that they should put their operations on a commercial basis and become self-supporting at the earliest possible moment. With that goal in view, the design and number of the company's air fleet has never been interfered with by the Air Ministry. Those matters have been left to the company and its expert advisers and have been governed solely by principles of strict business economy. The result has been that, with a far smaller subsidy, the company has now advanced towards an economic basis of operation far ahead of its Continental rivals. Therefore, it is clear that British air transport has not been in any way deflected from a genuine commercial basis of operation by the fact that it has been under the control of the Air Ministry whereas, on the other hand, there are powerful reasons why that responsibility should be continued.
In the first place, there are, so far as I can see, only two other Departments under which civil aviation could possibly be placed, namely, the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade. The Ministry of Transport is more than fully occupied by its road and rail problems and, moreover, its functions are at present confined to internal transport. The Board of Trade, if I may say so without disrespect, is already the Pooh-Bah of Government Departments. It is responsible for the overseas trade, for industries and manufactures, for patents, for commercial relations, for the mercantile marine, for public companies, for bankruptcy, for mines, for petroleum and a whole host of subordinate activities. It is almost a miracle that it discharges its immensely wide and varied responsibilities so efficiently.
Further, any transfer would necessitate an extensive duplication of staff, a pullulation of technical bureaucrats which I hardly think would commend itself to this House. Such questions as angles of incidence, stagger, streamlining, spinning, buffeting and a host of other aerodynamical problems affect equally aircraft for commercial and for military uses. The same applies to the study of metal fatigue, alloys, corrosion, propeller design, wireless telegraphy and telephony, and meteorology. You simply cannot from these angles divorce commercial from military development, at a time when the whole technique is so fluid. To sum up, I do not believe that there is any theoretical case for the divorce of civil aviation from the Air Ministry. I am quite certain that such divorce is a practical impossibility and is likely to remain so for a long time to come.
Here I may perhaps pause for a moment to pay a tribute to the work which an authoritative independent committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell, is doing on certain civil aviation problems. The original terms of reference of the committee have been extended to cover various important issues on which the Air Council are desirous of having independent outside advice. Not only the Air Ministry, but this House and the country, owe a deep debt of gratitude to the members of this committee, including three members of this House, who are giving up so much of their time to these arduous and complex investigations.
I have now covered, so far as time allows, the main services provided in these Estimates. In conclusion, I want to sound a note which will be familiar enough to hon. Members; which has always been well received by the House and has never more deserved to be so received than it does to-day. My Noble Friend testified on his return from his recent tour to the splendid spirit which he found pervading the personnel of the Royal Air Force at all the stations he visited. The same spirit exists equally at home. It would not have been altogether surprising, if all the talk which has been taking place of recent years on the subject of the total abolition of Air Forces had resulted in a certain discouragement and apathy among those who have chosen the Royal Air Force as their career. It would not have been surprising if such had been the case, indeed, the surprising thing to me is that it has not.
I would ask hon. Members to bear this aspect of a difficult question constantly in mind; I am sure that the House as a whole realises that the Royal Air Force is now, alongside the Royal Navy, the first-line of defence of these Islands and of the Empire. We must look to it that we do nothing to undermine the spirit and courage of that defence, especially when it still remains so necessary to our national security. I believe that no harm has been done as yet; but that is due to the loyalty and devotion of all ranks of a Service which, as I am sure the whole House will agree, has fully proved its worthiness to take co-equal place with the two older services in the trinity of Imperial Defence.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sure that I shall be expressing the view of the whole House if I congratulate the right hon. Member upon the interesting and admirable manner in which he has introduced the Estimates. It is what we expect of him, because we have had experience before, and I do not think that this afternoon he has fallen in any way below the high standard which he has set himself. We on this side certainly have no complaint whatever about the tone and temper in which he has dealt with the great problems involved in the Estimates. I should like, on behalf of the hon. Members who sit with me, to join in expressing our regret at the loss which the Air Service
suffered through the untimely death of Air Chief-Marshal Salmond, and also in the tribute which the Under-Secretary has paid to the spirit of the men of the Air Force.
I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman into any of the technical details of the Estimates; I am not qualified to do so. I want to discuss them from the point of view that all defence Estimates must be considered as the result of foreign policy. What defence we need whether in the air, on the sea, or on land, depends on what policy the Government adopt. It is strictly from that point of view that I wish to examine these Estimates. In the second place, I want to view the Estimates as part of the general defence system. We have complained very often in this House that we have not an opportunity of discussing the Estimates of the three Defence Services as one connected whole. We must look on the Air Estimates in relation to the other Defence Estimates, and we are fortunate to-day that we have in our hands the three Estimates. In each of the Estimates we find an increase. There is an increase of rather more than £500,000 for the Air Force, just under £3,000,000 for the Navy and rather more than £1,500,000 for the Army, a total of over £5,000,000 increased expenditure. I shall have something to say in regard to that increased expenditure later. It is an absolute increase.
When we look at the expenditure upon each Service we must be struck, I think, at the amount that we spend on the older Services compared with what we spend on the younger Service. We spend something over £20,000,000 on the Air Service, £56,500,000 on the Navy and just over £40,000,000 on the Army, a total of something like £106,000,000 for defence. That is called by some people our insurance. There are two questions that we have to ask about that. First, is that insurance effective and, secondly, is the right amount paid in respect of the various risks which may come to this country. For the air risks we pay roughly one-fifth. I want to examine the Air Estimates as part of a connected whole. It is impossible to separate the Air Force, the Army and the Navy and to take them as if they were separate and disconnected problems.
All warfare really comes down in the end to two points. The first is the pro-
pulsion of a projectile on to a target, and the second is the defence of that target against the projectile. Everything else is really subsidiary. The delivery of a bomb by an aeroplane on to a target is really, in essence, precisely the same thing as David slinging a stone against Goliath, the thrust of a spear against a shield, the hurling of a shell against an earthwork, the loosing of a torpedo against a vessel, or shooting an arrow from a bow. In essence, the whole problem is the same: how are you going to get the projectile on to the target? Therefore, to think of the Air Force as something quite separate, something entirely new, is wrong. It is merely an extension of the process involved in all warfare. Whatever your form of defence, whether it may be a shield or an earthwork, or an armoured vessel, or whatever it may be, essentially the object is to endeavour to defeat the projectile.
Therefore, when we consider the Air Estimates we consider them as part of an instrument of war, and to my mind the dominating weapon of war to-day. Anybody who has studied the matter from the point of view of making war, any person who is not blind to modern development or not hide-bound in old traditions, will always endeavour to get the most effective projectile he can and to deliver it at the most vulnerable point. To-day, obviously, the dominant projectile is the air weapon. An aeroplane carrying a bomb is a more effective way of getting a projectile to its target than any guns or anything else we have had in the past. To my mind it is childish to discuss the question of aerial bombing as if it were something quite outside the range of what is done by other weapons. We have to consider it as a development, and I hold that the fact of its development is the greatest menace to civilisation. We have to consider what is our position on the Air Estimates in regard to defence, taking the Air Estimate as an expression of the policy of His Majesty's Government.
I take it that it is now an established fact that in any future war the decision will be reached in the air. It is, of course, impossible to argue about that. I can only go by what the experts tell me, and from what little experience I had in the War. It seems to me per-
fectly obvious that in the next war, if there should be another war, you may have your Air Force disarmed before you can get your Navy, or Army into action. Experience has shown that no paper or conventional limitations will prevent the use of the weapon of the air to its fullest effect. That, I think, was made clear in the speech of the Lord President of the Council, and it is brought out clearly in a recent work by General Groves. Therefore the prohibition of air bombing would be ineffective in a war. At the present time scientific developments are such that air forces can destroy whole cities with comparative ease, and also vessels, whether armoured or mercantile vessels.
There is no effective defence against air attack. That is a point we have to consider on the Air Estimates. We have had it from the Lord President of the Council, and it seems to be backed up by every form of expert opinion, that at the present time, whatever you may spend on defensive schemes and aeroplanes of one kind and another, there is no effective defence against air attack. You may be able to get some effective defence at some time. You may get a ray that will play on the engine and upset the engine of the aeroplane. But you have not got it now.
I want to look at these Estimates from the point of view of a realist and not that of a sentimentalist. As a matter of fact in this matter the pacifist is the realist. Soldiers and sailors, perhaps as a natural revulsion from having to train for such a horrible thing as war, are absolute sentimentalists. Take, for instance, the soldier with regard to the horse. In the long tale of centuries you find exactly the same with the sailor, with regard to the traditional position of this country on the sea, the capital ship and so forth. He is a sentimentalist. I think probably the airman is more a realist at the present time. These Estimates are introduced at a time when the Disarmament Conference is still in being, and at the moment there is a British Draft Memorandum which aims at laying down a limitation of armed States within the League. Let me assume that, as we all hope, we get a limitation of armaments. Whatever you may do with regard to defence, guns and battleships, in the way of limitation, in my view you
will not have effected anything unless you have really dealt with air armaments. We have in the Memorandum by the Secretary of State, a statement on disarmament, which says that:
The policy which this country has advocated in the sphere of air disarmament has been clearly stated in successive White Papers laid before Parliament. Pending consideration by the Permanent Disarmament Commission of yet more far-reaching measures, His Majesty's Government have made their primary object the attainment of air parity in first line strength between the principal Powers, in order that a race in air armaments may at all costs be avoided.
It is their earnest desire to bring the others down to the British level. What does complete disarmament in the air mean? Does it mean the abolition of all military and naval aircraft? I believe that it is ineffective as long as you have civil aviation owned by separate nations. It seems to be established on the evidence that if you cannot draw this nice line between military and civil aircraft, convertibility is inherent in aircraft. Therefore it seems to me that, supposing we obtain more than we get in the Government White Paper, we have not really got away from the danger of competition in air armaments by merely getting rid of actual naval and military aircraft, as long as there is civil aviation which can be supported and is supported by subsidies from each country, and as long as we have chemical and other factories capable of conversion. Therefore to my mind the Government have not laid down a perfectly clear policy.
My second point is this: I do not want to discuss this disarmament question or foreign questions any more than is necessary for dealing with these Estimates. But I think it is clear to all of us that disarmament is dominated by security. Security means the reign of law enforced by sanctions, and the present sanctions that we have appear to be quite ineffective. Looking at these Estimates a realist has to ask himself, Do they really give air defence? In my view air defence in existing circumstances is a contradiction in terms. What every advocate of air defence really means is that he wants to have a force which will be a threat of counter-attack sufficient to deter anyone from attacking his country. That is the meaning of air defence. As long as you have national aviation you will have this
menace of air attack and you will have this competition between groups of States. They will be competing all the time and putting themselves into a position in which they will deter anyone from attack. Air defence does not mean putting a ring of stations round one city such as London, experimenting with anti-aircraft guns, flashing searchlights, and so on. It means counter-attack. To my mind any proposals put forward to the Disarmament Conference by this country have not got rid of competition in air armaments. To my mind anything like that means the utmost possible danger both to this country and to civilisation.
Can we get a defence against an air menace which will destroy western civilisation? That is the question we have to face. The statement of the Lord President of the Council is clearly before us. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a question for young men. I think it is a question for us. We on this side believe that it is perfectly useless and insane to take up a position in which we say, "Well, we will get air parity with every other country." I do not think you can get it. I do not think you can get it unless you are going to deal with the whole question of aircraft, whether military, naval or civil. You have to take in the whole question of aircraft. Then surely the question of air parity must really relate itself to what your general attitude is to foreign countries. Unless you really believe in a League of Nations and regard your Air Force as part of the collected sanctions of the League, you are in effect driven back to alliances of one kind or another, and at any time some temporary alliance may upset your parity.
Therefore, you have to face up to the real question of an air menace and how you are to meet it, and you are simply going in for competition in armaments. We hold that a very grave mistake was made by our Government in not coming to an agreement with the French for the internationalising of civil aviation. I believe that we did not do that because we shirked taking responsibility. On this subject I was reading the other day a passage from a book by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), a passage which struck me as extraordinarily good. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those brilliant and erratic geniuses who, when he sees clearly, sees
very, very clearly; and sometimes he does not. This passage occurs in his book "Aftermath." He was exercising his brilliant imagination with the idea that a great statesman who attended the Peace Conference had actually become sane and had decided in favour of world peace:
At the moment when science had produced weapons destructive of the safety and even the life of whole cities and populations, weapons whose actions were restricted by no frontiers and could be warded off neither by fleets nor by armies, a new instrument of human government would be created to wield them. So it was agreed that in principle the Powers of the Air should be reserved to the League of Nations for the purpose of maintaining world peace against aggression. No absolute veto was placed in the first place upon national air forces, but the whole emphasis of the policy of the Great Powers would be laid upon building up the International Air Force with the intention that as general confidence grew only commercial aviation should be developed nationally.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman went far enough. He ought to have taken in commercial aviation. That conception is back up by realists in France. It was backed up by realists in this House, by Members like the hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell), who made a very remarkable speech not very long ago. It it backed up by people of great experience. We ask, what is this menace? Is what is meant an air defence for this country against some possible attack, or is it meant as a contribution to a collective security under the League of Nations? The Government in our view do not seem to go whole-heartedly either one way or the other, and we fear that we are getting the worst of both worlds.
We shall oppose these Estimates not merely because there is an increase, but because we believe that the Government have no adequate and clear policy to meet this air menace. One Member of the Government, the Lord President, laid down absolutely clearly what the menace was, but I do not think that other Members of the Government have followed that up in their foreign policy. We believe that the Government should have worked for the entire internationalisation of aviation and for the creation of an international air force. It is easy to pooh-pooh that suggestion and
to say that there are all sorts of difficulties. I admit the difficulties. But the dangers and difficulties of having no policy are far greater; the danger of having a policy which is going to lead to competitive armaments is greater still. I confess that I am rather disturbed, after the clamour and shouting for an enormous increase of the Air Estimates, to find that it has died away. I wonder whether this Estimate is another smoke screen? I believe that whether the Disarmament Conference is successful at its present stage or not, it is utterly fatal for air defence to stop short, and a mere agreement about parity for fighting aeroplanes without dealing with civil aviation. I believe there is no real air defence.
I do not propose to try to elaborate, and it would be out of place on these Estimates to try to elaborate the details of an international Air Force. But I would say that hon. Members should seriously consider this matter of air defence and not brush aside the suggestion made, not only from this side of the House but from many other quarters, that the only way to get rid of the air menace is by internationalising the air forces of the world as an international police force. I do not put this suggestion forward as a sentimentalist, I am not a sentimentalist on war. Few civilians who fought in the last War are sentimentalists.
We on this side are out for total disarmament, because we are realists and we recognise that war is no longer, if it ever was, "the sport of kings." It is the destruction of the common people. We recognise that in order to get peace it is necessary to have something more than mere reduction or even abolition of armaments. You must have a rule of law and the means to enforce that law. We believe that it is not too late for the Government in their policy to say that the Air Force which we have is our contribution to the force that shall support the rule of law in the world. When the right hon. Gentleman was moving these Estimates he described to us in that fascinating way he has the activities of the Air Force on the borders of the Empire. I think he would get all that enthusiasm which he desires in our Air Force if it were charged with upholding the rule of law throughout the world as against the rule of force.

5.5 p.m.

Captain GUEST: I am less inclined than I have ever been to address the House of Commons owing to the fact that for the first time in a good many years I find myself forced into disagreement with a Ministry with which I have myself been connected in the past, and which, as far as I have been able to see, has been presided over admirably. But if one has very strong feelings on a subject of this kind I think that one ought to express them. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that these Estimates fail to indicate a policy, and that is the line which I propose to pursue in my remarks. I submit that these Estimates must be compared, not only with previous Estimates of our own but with the Estimates of other countries, because the problem with which we are faced is an international one. I draw attention to a sentence used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) a few weeks ago, when he pointed out that the 10-year guaranteed peace period had gone.
These Estimates have been claimed by the Minister as advantageous inasmuch as there is an increase in net expenditure of £130,000. But when one goes into them in detail one cannot discover these features. They are almost wrapped in impenetrable mystery. I have looked through the White Paper carefully, and I find increases as follows: technical equipment, £17,000; research, £43,000; works and buildings, £65,000; civil aviation, £23,000 and two minor increases, making a total of £165,000, which is in excess of the figure claimed as the total net increase. I would like someone to explain, too, wherein economies have been effected to the tune of £30,000. Perhaps that can easily be explained, but I cannot find here the new money for the new squadrons. Do these Estimates mean that we are to have a bigger, but a less efficient Air Force or do they mean that the economies which we were told last year were being made have not been found practicable?
I pass from that question to the more general subject of urging the Ministry to settle upon a definite policy. I think the Ministry will admit that the weapon which we have at our disposal in the Air Force is the fist weapon we should have to use in the event of war and that at the present moment it is totally in-
adequate for home defence. As a realist, like the hon. Member opposite, I recognise that one must not be panicky, but because one is concerned about our home defence, it does not follow that one is panicky. How can one as an ordinary reader of the newspapers envisage this upside-down world of ours to-day? I have said just now that the 10-year guaranteed peace period has long since passed. It is therefore clear that the continuity of the period to which we can look forward as a period of peace is a great deal shorter than it was some years ago. Now I do not think that many people will disagree with the view that Germany is beginning to rearm. People may say that we are putting obstacles in her way and that we are attempting to control her by means of our comments and criticisms. If one looks the situation fairly in the face, one is bound to recognise that Germany has every intention of rearming as quickly and as best she can.
I submit also that she has the further intention of annexing Austria. She may not succeed immediately but that is her expressed policy according to what we read in the newspapers. If that be true, it is quite obvious that Italy will interfere. What will be the effect of Italy's interference it is hard to say, but obviously it would bring about international complications of a far reaching character. I submit another simple truth—almost a truism. If anything did happen in the next few years, Ireland would be delighted to side with any enemy of Great Britain, and nobody knows what part she might play from a strategic point of view. I read in this morning's paper of a debate in the Belgian Chamber which indicates that Belgium is terrified. After all, the Belgians are closer to the German menace than we are. If Belgium is frightened, why should we ignore her warning? She thinks that in less than 18 months Germany can, if she persists in her rearmament, be as strong as France is to-day. That is not the statement of a reckless Member of Parliament. It is the view of serious members of the Belgian Chamber, and I think if we are realists, as I understand the hon. Gentleman opposite claims to be, we ought not to turn aside from warnings of that kind.
In this situation, where are our friends? France, presumably, is our
friend, and we hope and believe she will remain our friend. But France is off her balance too. We cannot put the confidence in the French Constitution to-day which we could have put in it 10 or 12 years ago. France is rocking with internal troubles, and we do not know whether in a month's time she will have a Constitution such as she has to-day. There might conceivably be a dictatorship there in less than six weeks. I only mention that to show that in making our calculations for national defence we cannot reckon France as being in exactly the same category as she was in three or four years ago. If we have an agreement with France to protect London—putting the matter as bluntly as we can—these factors must be considered, and we ought to know and to realise what the situation is. When the facts and figures are boiled down, is it the case that we have no means of defending our own capital? Have we any obligations to France or have we any agreement with the French nation to do that for us, in case of necessity? If that is so, the Ministry ought to be brave enough to tell the electorate of this country.
I will not waste time in drawing the attention of the House to what air warfare means. It means that there will be no warning, that there is no defence against attack except counterattack, and it means that civil aircraft are just as dangerous as military aircraft. I think a few minutes may usefully be spent by the House in comparing the expansion programmes of the various countries of Europe during the last 10 years, because it is on such figures that we have to base our views and recommendations. I have already said that our figures must be considered in relation to those of other countries and more particularly to those of our neighbours. In 1923 our Government laid down a programme which they considered to be the minimum for safety, and under that programme the total British first-line defence force totalled 371 machines. It has increased now to a total first line of 850, but it is to be remembered that only 400 of these are at home.
In the meantime what have other countries been doing? It is only by getting these figures well into our heads that we can realise the manner in
which we have been left behind. France, in 1923, had 1,270 first-line machines. To-day she has 1,650, but that is not the whole story of her activities. She has on hand a scheme for the planning and construction of over 1,000 aerodromes, and has already voted £32,000,000—not francs—to be spent in that manner over the next three years. There is definite and continued expansion without the slightest hint of any arrestation of progress. The Russian situation has been mentioned by the Minister in his opening speech. He has pointed out what the Russian intentions are. We gather from the newspapers, presumably in the same way as the Minister does, that the air force of Russia has gone up in 10 years from 150 machines to 1,500; that over 40 factories are in process of being established, and that they are now employing 150,000 workmen.
As to the other countries Italy has gone up from 450 machines to 1,100; Japan from nothing to 800, Poland from nothing to 700. Perhaps the American programme would not interest us so much, but it must be taken into account in any general review of the situation, and we find that the United States have gone up from 560 machines to 1,800, and we hear of a new programme already mentioned in Congress making a further increase which would bring the total up to 4,824. It is only by paying attention to the activities of other nations that we can form a just view of what we require to do.
I have said nothing about Germany from the point of view of aircraft. It is extremely difficult to know exactly how strong Germany is in that respect or how much of a foundation she has from which to make a start. But we know that she has 1,099 civil aeroplanes which are capable of being adapted for military service. The number of her pilots must be almost incalculable. For the last 10 years schools nominally called Civil schools have been training pilots steadily for some future military service. I do not know the number of factories which she has but presumably the Ministry does. Nor do I know what agreements she has with her friends and neighbours. But in considering what we do know about Germany, I come to my complaint against the Ministry, that in our Estimates there is no provision for the future. There is no foundation for any
development which we may afterwards be called upon to make. It is not for nothing that the Germans have 10,000 gliding certificates, while we in England have only 350. It is not for nothing that of the highest class of soaring certificates, which is a super-gliding certificate, Germany has 915 and we have only 78. Whatever way one looks at the matter they are far ahead of us in the fundamentals of the art of constructing an increased military force.
One is bound to dwell upon the defence of London in relation to the safety of our island. I do not think that it is unwise to discuss this sort of thing quite openly in the House of Commons. After all, it is information which is available to anyone, and if it is available to the man in the street you may be perfectly certain that it is available to every other Government. Those of us who were at home at any time during the duration of the War, and more particularly at the end, know well that London was a very easy target. An amusing story illustrates the fact so well that I propose to give it. It relates to an amateur who wished to fly a fairly big machine from Paris to London. He met a well known pilot on the evening before in the hotel. He said "I have never navigated the machine, but I think I can fly it." This very famous navigator, who, unfortunately, is now dead, said "When you get into the machine, you will see a compass, and in the middle of it you will see the letter O. Steer on O until you see the sea, and then turn sharp left and follow the river, and you will find a great city, and in that city two great towers, which are the Crystal Palace. All you have to do is to go round them, get them in line, climb to a height of 3,000 feet, shut off your engine and see what happens." I think that the scene was very amusing when the gentleman did it. He did exactly what he was told and landed in the middle of the aerodrome at Croydon. He landed and bumped 200 feet before he came down.
I use that illustration to point out how easily an amateur can find London. London therefore must be considered in every respect. Not only its accessibility, but its vulnerability and its vitality as regards the life of the nation. The Government is here. Speaking of Governments being able to move, the French did not hesitate to move their capital from Paris
to Bordeaux. I remember arriving in Paris with Field-Marshal Lord French and driving up to the War Office. All we found was the door shut and the Minister, M. Millerand, standing outside with his portfolio in his hand. He said, "Good morning Field-Marshal; we are going to Bordeaux." It was all done, and there was no difficulty. All the archives were taken, and the war was conducted from Bordeaux for many months. Apart from having your capital so easily bombed and having no alternative, as far as I know, where you could establish a capital to carry on your government. All your factories are situated within 15 miles of London. I do not know whether the House realise that almost all the big aircraft factories upon whom we would depend for rapid expansion and development for defence are all within this one small area. I think that the names of the great firms ought to be in your minds. Hawkers, De Havillands, Short Bros., Faireys, Handley Page, Napiers, Vickers, and many others are all within 15 miles of London. Not only that, but you have a whole circle of aerodromes. Every one is within equal distance of the centre of the city. These aerodromes are filled with hangars and are worth a great deal of money. I say, simply boiling it down to a sentence, that the Government ought to tell us if they have an alternative scheme which, if necessary, they can employ if anything were to happen in this way.
I wish to say one or two things about civil aviation. The civil aviation Vote is £513,000, and I rather thought that the Minister was proud of it. In 1921 when I took over the Ministry from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping he had allocated £1,000,000 to civil aviation. The money was never used because the schemes were not developed sufficiently at that time, but it was not thought wrong by the House of Commons at that period, some 12 years ago, that civil aviation should really be properly fed. The sum of £1,000,000 was the total vote to be found in the Estimates of 1921 and for several years afterwards. The Ministry has now laboriously found a way of helping civil aviation to the extent of £513,000. Again, I must ask hon. Members to consider this subsidy in relation to that given by other countries. France had a subsidy in 1923 of over £330,000, which has increased in the 10 years to £1,400,000.
That is not all by any means. She hides her Estimates very closely and in such a way that it is very hard to get at the bottom of them, but we can add to that sum of roughly £1,400,000. For instance, 40 per cent. of the initial cost of private aircraft and one-third of its upkeep, together with petrol free from tax. Those were the inducements in 1930, and the result was an immediate increase in private aircraft of 200 per cent. Russia we know nothing about. Italy gives a subsidy to-day which is far bigger than ours, one of £760,000. America, of course, running into the same class of figures which she always adopts, has a subsidy of over £4,300,000. Therefore, we should not take too much credit to ourselves. We are not the poorest nation in the world, yet we have to be content with the little sum of £513,000.
I wish, however, to deal rather specifically with one side of civil aviation, namely, the practical monopoly which has been granted to Imperial Airways. The House should know that 86 per cent. of the total civil aviation Vote goes to one company. The company, of course, has ordinary shareholders and has to consider their interests. On the other hand, where the House of Commons votes the use of that money, they have a right to know what they do with it and to have come control over how they spend it. I think that the agreement lately made between Imperial Airways and the railway companies has been made behind the back of the Minister. I informed the Minister that I was going to ask him to answer this question specifically here and now. I gave him two days' notice of what I intended to ask him. I hope that he will, for the information of the House of Commons, let me have an answer "Yes" or "No," whether the railway company agreement was made without consultation with, and without the approval of, the Air Ministry?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will answer the question later on.

Captain GUEST: If the question is to be answered later on, we should like to know a little more still. What were the two Government directors doing if they did not inform the Ministry? I do not quite understand how it could have happened without the knowledge and, pre-
sumably, the approval of the Air Ministry. I submit that the monopoly system of this company is the worst thing for the civil aviation of Great Britain. It has the effect of killing private enterprise. Twelve small companies, started a few months ago, have no hope of getting business this year. They tried last year, and carried on with great difficulty without subsidy, which reflects greatly to their credit. This year they will no doubt have another try, but the lines will be chosen by the railway companies, and smaller people who have ideas of their own will have very little chance of putting them into effect. I think that it will be a case of the canals over again. The railway companies killed the canals because they interfered with some sections of their traffic, and in the same way you will find that, if this monopoly of the railway company is allowed to function, they will kill all small companies who try to oppose them.
One word about light aeroplane flying clubs. The importance of considering this side of our activities is that it is the only reservoir which we have for the supply of pilots. Surely, the House would admit that, with only £16,000 set aside out of £513,000, it is not an unfair thing to describe them as being starved. These 26 or 28 clubs are the only organisation to whom we can look and upon whom we can rely for an increase in the number of pilots. The Ministry have lost a great opportunity in not developing these clubs more actively. These young pilots can fly it is true, but they are not potential war pilots at present. All that they can fly is small light aircraft and machines of that kind. Would it not have been much better if the Ministry had considered subscribing a large sum of money to training those young "A" licence pilots to fly military aircraft? It would be a very easy organisation to manage. It would mean simply the handing over of a number of military machines to clubs, and that in return they must train "A" licence pilots on a military machine. I have tried to work out the cost to the Government of such a proposal. There are 2,800 "A" class pilots. Suppose two-thirds of them undertook a course every year, it would cost on an average £150 per pilot. Surely, if the £1,000,000 devoted to civil aviation was not considered too high a figure 12 years ago, it should not be considered too
high to-day when the need for pilots is ever so much greater.
The House has been patient with me, and it is seldom that I take up so much of its time. I submit that the Estimates themselves are misleading in that the country is really weaker because you are trying to get a larger Air Force and spending less money. I do not see where the provision for the new units appears. By the neglect of civil aviation from the point of view of pilots the chance of creating a valuable reserve has been entirely lost. The allowing of an increased monopoly to Imperial Airways is the most harmful thing that could possibly happen to civil aviation as a whole. Private enterprise is the one thing upon which we can always depend. Is it fair, just when it is beginning to bud and to throw out its leaves and generally to get on to its feet, that it should be crashed by an agreement made with the railway companies against whom it cannot possibly compete. There is a lack of policy which is devastatingly dangerous in these admittedly dangerous times. I think that everyone will agree that, whether we like it or not, we must admit that the word "danger" is written on the wall, and that the policy which is adopted by this country must take that fact into serious consideration. If I am wrong in what I have said, so much the better. If I am right, then God help the Prime Minister of this day.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I should like to join in the words of congratulation to my right hon. Friend who made such an admirable and interesting statement this afternoon. I cannot help thinking that the Government, in view of the situation in the world to-day, and in view of the tremendous pressure which has been put upon them in the last few months to supply many thousands of machines, going up to a maximum of 25,000 at one time, have shown considerable restraint in bringing forward Estimates with such a comparatively small increased Vote. At the same time, I do not think that the present situation can go on for long. I agree with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) has just said. We are in a situation of growing danger. Probably the remedy I
should suggest would not be quite the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member.
The race in armaments has begun. It begun 12 months ago, when the Hitler regime took office in Germany, and it has been proceeding practically unimpeded ever since. It may be that 12 months ago, when we had some grip on the situation, we ought to have taken firm and definite action, for as every month has gone by we have had to give up one point after another until now there is nothing to prevent the complete rearmament of Germany in the air, and in other directions, whenever she thinks fit. The policy of the Government has been one of absolute drift. They have had no clear idea of where they are going, they have not put forward their disarmament policy clearly, nor have they adopted any alternative policy. I say with the deepest regret that the prospects for disarmament at the present time—I am, of course, referring primarily to air armaments—are hopeless, certainly along the lines of policy that has been pursued by the Government up to the present. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the size of the air forces in different countries, and he pointed out the significant fact that the largest European air force in touch with us has twice as many machines as we have, indeed, four times as many, as France has 1,650 machines whilst we have only 400. That is an astonishing situation. And if you look at the large convertible air liners which are available in different countries, France has 269, Germany 177, Italy 77, and we have 32.
What is the position in Germany? It is difficult to obtain exact information but let me quote a passage from an article which appeared in the "Times" last January on German armaments, from its Paris correspondent:
By the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forbidden to possess a single military machine or to train a single military pilot. It is believed here that many so-called commercial German machines are nothing but military aeroplanes in disguise. It is also believed that an adequate supply of pilots is being rapidly trained … It is now thought that there are many potential fighting, or bombing machines. Expert opinion here estimates that 500 of them were ready in 1932 and not unnaturally believes that the figure has increased since then. Even so there is much more concern about the future. From information in their
possession responsible French observers are convinced that within a very short time after the outbreak of war Germany could produce more military machines than the combined output of British and French factories.
According to the air disarmament plan of the Government Germany is expected to wait for two years whilst the question of the total abolition of air forces is being discussed. I do not think there is the slightest chance of Germany accepting any such proposal. They have made it clear that they want 1,000 machines, or 40 per cent. of the combined total of their neighbours. I do not know whether we have not reached a position in which to put into operation Article 213 of the Treaty, in order to see exactly what is the position in Germany. To-day we are considering by far the most important of the Service Estimates. If there is going to be any increase, I do not want any increases at all, in any of the Services, I say that the Air Force has a far greater claim than either the Navy or the Army. It must not be taken, however, that I am advocating any increase. I say this with regard to the Air Force because it has been laid down as the view of the General Staff in the post-War edition of Field Service Regulations, that:
War can be prosecuted only by the will of a united people. The aim of a nation which has taken up arms is, therefore, to bring such pressure to bear upon the enemy people as to induce them to force their Government to sue for peace.
Whatever resolutions may be passed, however reluctant we in this country may be to make use of the air arms for attacking the civilian population of the enemy country, it is absolutely inevitable that we shall, as a matter of reprisal, be obliged to do so. Two-thirds of our Air Force is composed of bombers, which shows clearly that it is our intention in war to go for the capital cities of other countries, just as they will go for our own capital here. What will that involve? In an interesting book which has just been published by an eminent military authority he points out that in the War the largest bomb dropped on London weighed 672 pounds. It was dropped in Paddington, killed 12 people, 28 were wounded and 400 houses were affected in one way or another. Now it is possible to drop a bomb weighing 4,000 pounds. Experiments which have taken place show that a cloud was raised 1,000 feet in
height and a crater made of 64 feet in diameter, 19 feet deep, and displace 1,000 cubic yards of material. During the War only 30 tons of bombs were dropped on London, and 188 people were killed. It has been estimated that the strongest air power in Europe could drop 600 tons daily on London, which on the same ratio would mean a death rate of 37,600. If you were, in addition, to use the weapon of gas even more terrible results would occur. I am not making these statements as an alarmist but as a realist. They are true and unless we face them clearly and have a definite policy with regard to the best way of dealing with this matter we, and the whole of the world, are in for disaster before many years. There is a moral to be derived from these facts. It is this, that the present half-hearted policy of doing neither one thing nor the other is absolutely futile and hopeless and leading straight to disaster. You have to have either a whole-hearted disarmament policy and pursue it with all the vigour possible, or you have to rearm.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does the hon. Member mean unilateral disarmament?

Mr. MANDER: Certainly not. I mean the Government's own air disarmament policy if they pursue it with all the vigour and determination they can command, as a great national Government, with a majority of 500. My complaint is that they are not using it, and never have. I should be only too delighted if they would press their own policy with the utmost vigour. The hon. and gallant Member has quoted a statement in the White Paper with regard to the policy of the Government. The policy, as I gather, is to arrive at parity with major nations of 500 machines each, and then, as soon as possible, within two years, if agreement can be reached, to come down to no military aircraft for any country at all, to abolish them. The only policy which I believe can save us is to use our influence and prestige with all the vigour and determination we possess as a great nation, leading the world, as we can if we like, and press forward as our immediate object, not as an object to be attained in two or three years time, to the abolition of military aviation all over the world, coupling with it international control of civil aviation. I shall be told that it is difficult, that there are all sorts
of troubles to be overcome; but, after all, what are we here for but to overcome difficulties and find a solution. A solution of this question must be found some day. Why cannot we find it now before further millions have been destroyed? The only effective way of controlling civil aviation is by an international aerial police force. That is the right policy. It is the right objective; and I hope the Government will not neglect the possibilities of proceeding on this line.
A point upon which we shall have to be clear is that of giving security to those nations whom we expect to disarm. You cannot expect France to reduce her armaments unless she is absolutely certain that we shall be there to support her when the moment arrives. It is no good for us, in the world as it is to-day, to say that we have national prejudices, that we are not accustomed to say what we are going to do beforehand, that we cannot break away from our age long habits. We are not alone, we live in a world with people who have different views and perhaps clearer and more logical minds than we have, and they want to know what is going to happen. If we want security and safety we shall have to pay the price. The Government have never been willing to pay the price. We must indicate with clearness that all the obligations we have assumed will be observed so that there will not be the slightest doubt in anyone's mind, as there is at the present time. I urge the Government, as the only sane and possible alternative to a disastrous race in air armaments, mounting Estimates and thousands of machines, to go forward with the policy with more vigour than ever. In that way alone can they avoid the next war which is already clearly visible upon the horizon.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like, in what is almost common form this afternoon, to join with Members of every party in complimenting the Under-Secretary of State upon his admirable and lucid speech and the manner in which he has presented these Estimates to the Committee to-day. My right hon. Friend has been a very long time at the Air Ministry as Under-Secretary of State, and it is in my knowledge, which I dare say a good many Members can confirm from their own personal experience and informa-
tion, that he has gained for himself a most important and agreeable measure of respect and good will from the mass of the serving officers and men in the Service to which he has devoted his main interest. There is nothing that I could say which in the slightest degree could in any way enhance the feeling, which I think is general in the House, that the Under-Secretary of State fills the important post which he occupies with efficiency, distinction, and success. I feel, however, that, confined as he necessarily is within limits prescribed by the office which he holds to recount the functions of his Department and to explain to us its projects and its administrative details, it would not be sufficient if this Debate ended without a declaration from some Cabinet Minister upon the great issues of policy upon which the Under-Secretary of State is not entitled to speak otherwise than he has been instructed.
This Debate, so far as it has gone, has revealed an almost unanimous consensus of opinion. There was the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander) from the Liberal Benches, to which we all listened with agreement in parts, with sympathy in parts, with alarm in parts, and with amusement in other parts. The hon. Gentleman exhorted the Government to work vigorously, really vigorously, for their policy of cutting down all the Air Forces and ultimately abolishing military aviation. But I ask myself whether the Liberal party are not sometimes a little too much inclined to attach importance to pious wishes and a little too reluctant to face the facts which will follow if no notice is taken of the expression of those pious wishes. I am bound to say I think we must suppose a situation in which the Government have worked and are working their utmost to procure the abolition of military aviation, but we must also face a situation in which it is clear that those well-meant endeavours will not meet with any appreciable measure of success.
Nobody imagines for a moment that these requests, these suggestions, which have been put forward—which we had an absolute right to put forward, since we had made these restraints and sacrifices ourselves—will be agreed to at the present stage of the world by any of the great Powers of the world. I am not
going to detain the House for any length of time, but it seems to me that we have reached a turning point in our affairs. It is certain that the endeavours which have been made by the Government to procure a measure of disarmament, not only in the air, from Europe similar to that which we have practised ourselves as an example, have failed. As the House knows, I have never thought, personally, that these efforts would succeed, and I have said so. Perhaps it was unpalatable to say it. I exceedingly regret that they have failed. The Government have admitted for more than a year past that in their desire to procure disarmament they have gone to the very edge of risk. Yes, Sir, and many of us think that they have gone beyond that edge. But I am not going to-night to indulge in any reproaches. I think it is to the present and future that we must look rather than to anything that may have happened in the past.
I have not been able to convince myself that the policy which the Government have pursued has been in sufficiently direct contact with the harsh realities of the European situation, but, of course, I admit most fully that they have made it clear before all the world, not only by words, which are so easy, but by actions, which are so hard, or by inaction, which is so questionable, how sincere has been and still is our desire to bring about that general measure of disarmament especially in the air, to which the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal Benches has referred. That has failed, and nobody can deny it. You could not have chosen in this country anyone more qualified to bring success to his mission than the Lord Privy Seal. It is not his fault that he has not met with success. No one could have stated our sincere case in a more agreeable manner, more simply and effectively, to the different countries which he has visited, but he has failed. It is not his fault, but he has failed, and that is the fact that we have to take our stand upon this afternoon. It is in view of that fact that we must take a new decision. In view of that failure we must now, from this moment, betimes, look to our own safety. That is the feeling which I believe is in the minds of all those, the
most pacific in this House as well as those who are interested in this new great aviation service, that we must now, betimes, take measures to put ourselves in a state of reasonable security.
What are the measures that we can take? First of all, of course, there is the preservation of the peace of Europe. Everything that we can do to that end by our policy we should do, and I am astounded to think that this Government, which has laboured, as I think, far beyond the bounds of practical expectation in the cause of disarmament and peace, should be abused and insulted as if it were an Administration that was anxious to plunge this country into another war. But putting the preservation of peace in the first place, let us see what is the next great object that we must have in view. It is to secure our national freedom of choice to remain outside a European war, if one should break out. That, I put as the more direct and more practical issue, subordinate to but not less important than the preservation of peace.
This is not the time, in this Debate, for us to argue about the duties and obligations which this country may have contracted or her interpretation of those obligations in regard to any Continental struggle that may arise. We all hope it will never take place, and I am not at all prepared, standing here, to assume that it will inevitably take place. On the contrary, I still grasp the larger hope and believe that we may wear our way through these difficulties and leave this grim period, this revision to barbarism almost, behind once again. But there can be no assurance upon that, and I am concerned this afternoon with arguing that we must have the effective right and power to choose our own path, in accordance with the wishes and resolves of the nation, in any contingency or in any emergency which may arise upon the Continent of Europe; and for this purpose we must be safe from undue foreign pressure.
These are not the times when we can afford to confide the safety of our country to the passions or to the panic of any foreign nation which may be facing some grave and desperate crisis. We must be independent. We must be free. We must preserve our full latitude and discretion
of choice. In the past we have always had this freedom and independence. As I said the other day, often have I heard reproaches about the Liberal Government before the War, that they did not make enough preparations or look far enough ahead, but we were in a position where, at any rate, we had a complete freedom of choices, we might lose by delay, but, as far as the safety of this country was concerned, we were not in any danger. We could hold our own here and take what time we chose to make up our minds, and we could hold our own here and take what time we required to raise the whole vast might of the British Empire, month after month and year after year, from a peace to a war footing.
Nothing of that sort exists to-day, and unless we regain that freedom of choice, we are no longer integrally or characteristically the same kind of country in which we have always dwelt and which for hundreds of years has been the means by which we have built up our own special, insular character and culture. We have never lived at anybody's mercy. We have never lived upon the good pleasure of any Continental nation in regard to our fundamental requirements. We have never entrusted the home defence of this country to any foreign Power. We have never asked for any help from anyone. We have given help to many, but we have asked for help from none to make good the security of our own island. I recognise the strong ties of interest, of sentiment, and of modern sympathy which unite the two great, still-remaining Parliamentary democracies of Western Europe. The French and British populations are profoundly bent on peace, and their Governments have nothing to gain by war, but everything to lose. These are great ties which we have in common with the French Republic, but, in spite of all that, we ought not to be dependent upon the French Air Force for the safety of our island home.
My right hon. Friend asked a pointed question upon that subject, and I have no doubt the Government will give a reassuring answer, and have a right to give it; but still, although there may be no engagement, the mere fact that you cannot defend yourselves and that your friend across the Channel has additional power makes an implication and a
whole series of implications which very nearly approach the establishment of the condition of dependence upon overseas protection. All history has proved the awful peril of being dependent upon a foreign State for home defence instead of upon one's own right arm. This is not a party question, not a question between pacifists and militarists but those who consider the essential independence for character of our island life and wish to preserve that from intrusion or distortion of any kind from external forces. We ought to have our safety, but let us see what we mean by safety. It is a word easy to use, but somewhat difficult to explain. Now that the hideous air war has cast the shadow of its wings over the harassed civilisation of the 20th century, no one can pretend that by any measures which we could take it would be possible to give absolute protection against an aggressor dropping bombs in this island and killing a great many unarmed men, women and children.
No one can guarantee absolute immunity. No Government can be asked to guarantee absolute immunity to the nation if we were attacked in this way by this new arm. It is certainly in our power, however, if we act in time, to guard ourselves, first of all, from a mortal blow which would compel us to capitulate; and secondly, it is in our power, I firmly believe, to make it extremely unlikely that we should be attacked, or that we should be attacked by this particular method of terrorising the civil population by the slaughter of non-combatants, which, to our shame and the shame of the 20th century, we are now forced to discuss as a practical issue. For this purpose we ought to use every method which is available. We cannot afford to neglect any method, and I am going to mention what I consider are the four successive simultaneous lines of defence which we should develop. The first, of course, is a peaceful foreign policy. We must continue to strive, as we are striving, by every means, by every action, by every restraint and suppression of harsh feelings and expressions to preserve the peace and harmony of Europe. No one, unless blinded by malice or confused by ignorance, would doubt that that has been the main desire of His Majesty's present Administration,
just as it was of the Administrations which preceded it.
What is the second line? In my view we ought not to neglect any security which we can derive from international conventions. We must get all we can from them. I do not agree with those who say that these international conventions are not worth the paper on which they are written. It may well be that vague, general pious affirmations like the Kellogg Pact do not carry much practical conviction to people's minds, because anyone can see that, the right of self-defence being conceded to every nation, every country which plunges into war will allege that it is fighting in self-defence and will probably convince its own people that it is doing so. Therefore, though I do not say that to make this wide, general affirmation that there will be no more war is not an extremely good thing to do, it undoubtedly has not carried conviction, and thus it has weakened the virtue of these international instruments. When you come to more definite, limited and precise arrangements, I believe that a greater measure of confidence can be reposed in them. At any rate, we should be very foolish to neglect them. Whatever may happen to the discussions now going on about regulating the size of air fleets, we should strive to secure an international convention or a series of treaties confining air warfare to military and naval objectives and to the zones of field armies.
Such schemes would have to be drawn up in full detail, but I do not believe that this would be impracticable, and I hope the House is not going to be led by very easy arguments to suppose there is no validity or virtue in such arrangements. All the experience of the world shows that they have played their parts even in the most hideous quarrels of nations, and any nation that refused to enter into discussions of a convention to regulate air warfare would consequently be left in a position of grisly isolation, proclaiming its intention deliberately to make war as a scientific and technical operation upon women and children by the terrorisation of the civil population. It would be a very wise thing for us to get as many nations as possible to join in a convention which
would exclude, on paper at any rate, this method from the area of recognised warfare. I deprecate anything that is said to assume that such a method is comparable at all with any form of decent civilisation. I suggest, therefore, that we should strive to make such a convention or conventions without delay, and we should do that apart from any larger international instruments or reassurances which may be sought. I think that His Majesty's Government have been perfectly right to make it clear that no question of the convenience of using air warfare for police purposes in savage countries and barbarous regions should stand in the way of such an agreement or convention if that police measure becomes the sole obstacle to the conclusion of an arrangement otherwise generally satisfactory.
We must not balance convenience against safety, and even if we were faced with the old difficulty of expense in maintaining order in the mountain valleys of India without the facilities of an air arm, provided there was a world consensus of opinion against the use of bombing undefended areas, I am of opinion that it would be to our advantage to make the sacrifice in order to secure a much greater gain. I almost heard a smile, as it were, when I referred to these conventions, and it will of course be asked, "Will such agreements ever be kept during the fury and agony of war, when the life of whole races seems to be at stake?" Here, again, it is not possible to speak with absolute assurance. Certainly we should never be justified in confiding our safety to such conventions. We should take them for what they are worth. I believe the lawyers have a term de bene esse. I am not very good at Latin, but I believe that it means "for what they are worth." We should not take them as a substitute, of course, for reasonable measures of self-defence. But after all, every war is not a world war, and every European war is not a general war in Europe. When two Powers are engaged in a narrowly balanced struggle, the opinion of neutrals becomes of immense importance. It may well be decisive in determining which way the balance is finally tipped, and we should not presume that, because practically all restraint was swept away in Armageddon,
restraint will not play a part, and that international conventions will not play a useful and valuable part if another war should break out among various nations.
Even taking the lowest view of human nature, nations at war do not usually do things which give them no special advantage, and which grievously complicate their own position. No convention of the kind of which I have been speaking would be of the slightest use between the great Powers unless it were based on parity. That is the key to any convention which can be negotiated. If one side had an all-powerful air force and the other only a very weak defence, the temptation to use the weapon of terror upon the civil population might well far outweigh any detrimental effects on neutral opinion. If, however, the two sides were in an equality and in the position to do equal and simultaneous harm to each other, then the uselessness of the crime would reinforce its guilt and horror and its evil effects upon the action of neutrals. I hold that we should make conventions to limit and regulate the use of the air arm, and these conventions should be made, and can only be made, on the basis of parity. If both sides feel that they suffer equally from a breach of an international convention and neither side can see how it can gain an advantage over the other, it seems likely that these conventions will be respected. Not only would the danger of our being attacked be greatly diminished, but the character of the attack would be confined within the limits of the convention by breaking which neither side would have anything to gain.
That is the argument for parity, and for immediate parity. I believe that conventions based on parity are the best and only means of shielding the crowded populations of our great cities, and particularly of this enormous London to which my hon. and gallant Friend has so vividly referred with so much striking detail. The best method of protecting them is to have these conventions based upon a parity which makes it certain that there will be no advantage to either side in departing from what has been agreed upon. I do not see how the most sincere lover of peace or the most inveterate hater of war in this House can dispute the good sense and reason of the argument of parity.
There is, of course, one other and ultimate method of defence which we must also develop by every conceivable means. I mean the effective punishment and destruction, by an active and efficient home defence, of any invaders who may come to our shores. I do not pretend to deal with technical matters this afternoon. This is not the time for us to deal with them, nor do I think the House of Commons is the best place in which they can be ventilated with any advantage, but I must express this opinion. It ought to be possible, by making good arrangements both on the ground and in the air, to secure very real advantages for the force of aeroplanes which is defending its own air and which can rise lightly laden from its own soil. I cannot believe that that advantage, properly organised, would not give an additional and important measure of protection. We should be able by those means to impose deterrents upon an invader, impose deterrents upon a potential declaration of war, and gradually to bring attacks upon us, by attrition, to smaller dimensions and finally to an end altogether. In these matters we have, of course, to trust our experts. I hope that they are busy, that they are tirelessly working out methods of defence, and we must trust the Government and the Ministers concerned to guide the experts, to make their contribution, which is an indispensable contribution to any good scheme, to make a complete arrangement, and to make sure that the necessary funds and authority are supplied to carry out a complete scheme of home defence.
Therefore, there seem to me to be four lines of protection by which we can secure the best chance, and a good chance, of immunity for our people from the perils of air war—a peaceful foreign policy; the convention regulating air warfare; the parity in air power to invest that convention with validity; and, arising out of that parity, a sound system of home defence—in addition to all these other arrangements if they all fail. We must not despair, we must not for a moment pretend that we cannot face these things. Dangers come upon the world; other nations face them. When, in old days, the sea gave access to this island, it was a danger to this island, it made it the most invadable place at any point, but by taking proper measures our ancestors gained the command of the
sea, and, consequently, what had been a means of inroad upon us became our sure shield and protection; and there is not the slightest reason why, with our ability and our resources, and our peaceful intentions, our desire only to live quietly here in our island, we should not raise up for ourselves a security in the air above us which will make us as free from serious molestation as did our control of blue water through bygone centuries.
It is not to be disputed that we are in a very dangerous position to-day. This is a very good White Paper. The opening paragraph sets forth a most admirable declaration, but what is there behind it? £;130,000. Very fine words. It must have taken the Cabinet a long time to agree to them—with the Air Minister drafting them and putting them round. They give great paper satisfaction. But what is there behind them? £;130,000. It is not the slightest use concealing the facts. My right hon. Friend has given some of them. The Liberal Member who spoke from the benches opposite gave some, as I thought, most disconcerting and alarming facts about air warfare and the growth of air armaments. And we are, it is admitted the fifth air Power only, if that. We are only half the strength of France, our nearest neighbour. Germany is arming fast, and no one is going to stop her. That seems quite clear. No one proposes a preventive war to prevent Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles. She is going to arm, she is doing it, she has been doing it. I have not any knowledge of the details, but everyone is well aware that those very gifted people, with their science and with their factories, with what they call their air sports, are capable of developing with great rapidity a most powerful air force for all purposes, offensive and defensive, within a very short period of time.
Germany is ruled—I am going to pick my words, so that there is no word of offence put in—by a handful of autocrats who are the absolute masters of that mighty, gifted nation. They are men who have neither the long interests of a dynasty to consider, for what that is worth—and sometimes it is worth something—nor have they those very important restraints which a democratic Parliament and constitutional system impose upon
any executive Government. Nor have they the restraint of public opinion, which public opinion, indeed, they control by every means which modern apparatus renders possible. They are men who owe their power to the bitterness of defeat, who are, indeed, the expression of the bitterness of defeat, and of the resolved and giant strength of that mighty, that tremendous German Empire. I am not going to speak about their personalities, because there is no one in the House who is not thoroughly aware of them and cannot form his own opinion after having read the accounts of what has been happening there, of the spirit which is alive there and of the language, methods and outlook of the leading men of that tremendous community, much the most powerful one in the whole world. It is in their hands, and they can direct it this way or that by a stroke of the pen, by a single gesture.
I dread the day when the means of threatening the heart of the British Empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers of Germany. I think we should be in a position which would be odious to every man who values freedom of action and independence, and also in a position of the utmost peril for our crowded, peaceful population, engaged in their daily toil. I dread that day, but it is not, perhaps, far distant. It is, perhaps, only a year, or perhaps 18 months, distant. Not come yet, at least so I believe, or I hope and pray. But it is not far distant. There is still time for us to take the necessary measures, but what we want are the measures. We do not want this paragraph in this White Paper, we want the measures. It is no good writing that first paragraph and then producing £130,000. We want the measures to achieve parity. The hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke so many words of wisdom seemed to me to mar the significance and point of his argument when he interposed in it the statement that he was not committing himself to any increase.

Mr. MANDER: At this stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But this is the stage. My argument is that it is the stage—I do not say to-day, but within the next week or so. The turning point has been reached, and the new steps must be taken. There are very special dangers to be feared if any great Power possess-
ing enormous Dominions and connections all over the world falls into a peculiarly vulnerable condition. How many wars have we seen break out because of the inherent weakness of some great empire, such as the Hapsburg Empire or the Turkish Empire when they fell into decay? Then all the dangerous forces become excited. No nation playing the part we play in the world, and aspire to play, has a right to be in a position where it can be blackmailed.
I said I would not dwell on the past, but I must repudiate the unfair attacks which have been made lately upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. He and I have very grave differences, and I, personally, shall carry them to their conclusion, but to charge him, or to charge Lord Trenchard, to whom our small but admirable Air Force owes so much, with having failed in their public duty, is monstrous. At any rate, as Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible for five Budgets before 1929 I must entirely associate myself with the Secretary of State for India, then Minister for Air. Next to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, then Prime Minister, I shared the responsibility for what was done, or not done, in those years, and I am prepared to offer a detailed and, I trust, vigorous justification—or, I hope, vindication—if it should be desired in any quarter. But the scene has changed. This terrible new fact has occurred. Germany is arming, she is rapidly arming, no one will stop her. None of the grievances between the victors and the vanquished have been redressed. The spirit of aggressive nationalism was never more rife in Europe and in the world. Far away are the days of Locarno when we nourished bright hopes of the reunion of the European family and the laying in the tomb of that age-long quarrel between Teuton and Gaul of which we have been the victims in our lifetime. Those days are gone, all that comfortable assurance which we felt, and which I think we felt rightly, and in which we may prove to have been right, that no major war need be anticipated for 10 years—we do not feel it now.
That feeling is gone, and we must act in accordance with the new situation. Here I address myself particularly to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, whom I see in his place.
I say nothing in derogation of the high responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I address myself particularly to the Lord President as he is in his place in the House. He alone has the power. He has the power not only because of the confidnce which is placed by large numbers of people of the country in the sobriety of his judgment and in his peaceful intentions, but also because, as leader of the Conservative party, he possesses the control of overwhelming majorities of determined men in both Houses of the Legislature. My right hon. Friend has only to make up his mind what is to be done in this matter, and I cannot think the Prime Minister will differ from him [Laughter]. I do not mean in that sense. It is your mistake, not mine. He has only to make up his mind what has to be done in this matter, and Parliament will vote all the supplies and all the sanctions which are necessary, if need be within 48 hours. There need be no talk of working up public opinion. You must not go and ask the public what they think about this. Parliament and the Cabinet have to decide, and the nation has to judge whether they have acted rightly as trustees. The Lord President has the power, and if he has the power he has also what always goes with power—;he has the responsibility. Perhaps it is a more grievous and direct personal responsibility than has for many years fallen upon a single servant of the Crown. He may not have sought it, but he is to-night the captain of the gate. The nation looks to him to advise it and lead it, to guide it wisely and safely in this dangerous question, and I hope and believe that we shall not look in vain.

6.31 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I rise for only a short space of time to intervene in this Debate, and what I shall say I shall say on behalf of the whole Government. I am not going to deal with any of the details of the Estimates or to interfere in the slightest way with my right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air who sits beside me, and who is so admirably competent for the work he has to do. That is not my intention, but when questions involving the policy of the Government are asked, they must be replied to by a Member of the Cabinet, and that is the reason why I propose to say a few words.
I was very interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I valued the moderation of it. We do meet in circumstances of gravity to-day, but though that be true, do not let us at this moment exaggerate them. That would do no good at all, and I will try to be a realist. So many of our military difficulties which afford us so much thought—;both in Governments and in Parliaments—arise from exactly the same source as industrial and political difficulties, and that is, the amazing discoveries of modern science. Indeed, in almost every branch of knowledge, men are under that strange, irresistible urge, are tearing away the veil from the secrets of nature, and those of us who are responsible for the government of the world almost look with dread as to what the next secret may be that may be revealed. To-night we are considering what can be done in face of this potential peril.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), who I know is so keenly interested in these matters. I would say this at this moment: All the perils of which he spoke are potential; they are not at the moment actual. We have to take care that they do not become actual. He said—or at least I gather that he said, although I think it was a figure of speech—that he was only a man who got all his information from the newspapers. Well, there is information, and information. I, myself, never knew but one paper that was invariably accurate, which I read through from cover to cover, and which I keep in my library bound in Morocco. It was edited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, and was called the "British Gazette." Just one word more about my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Drake. This is what struck me when he was speaking, and I have no doubt that it occurred to other Members of the House: it is very interesting psychologically. I would never accuse my right hon. and gallant Friend, who is a man of courage and who has been a Member of a Government, of making any remarks with any feeling of panic; but he was moved. What I felt was that the speech which he was making here might have been made in any country of Europe. That is the
curious thing about the psychological effect of this problem which we are discussing to-night.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping; the European situation has changed in the last 12 months, owing to various circumstances in various parts of the world with which I need not deal to-night. It has changed considerably. It has changed in a way which, in some ways, makes it more difficult for us, but I am convinced that, whatever be the ultimate motive that makes Germany at this moment so anxious for her air force—it may be, as some say, militaristic ideas alone, or, as others say, from a feeling of national pride—under all these feelings, do not let us make any mistake, there is the same feeling of apprehension of her people which my right hon. Friend showed that we all feel about London. They feel it about Berlin and about the Ruhr; the Italians feel it about the cities of Northern Italy; and the French are never without that feeling. When we have all got that feeling, we shall be criminal, the Governments of Europe at least, if we cannot arrange among ourselves to limit this terror so far as we may. That is why I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping when he spoke of the Lord Privy Seal's tour as having been a failure. I know that it has been written down everywhere as a failure; I do not admit it for one moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a fact, but it was a fact, as Lord Melbourne said, not correctly stated—facts seldom are.
That tour has not yet brought its fruit. I have by no means given up the hope yet of a convention, something on our lines that will give that equality in air strength which I believe to be the first requisite for avoiding this danger. Why is it the first requisite? It is very simple. The great peril from the air, as all would admit in this House, is the attempt of any given nation, under any impulse, to get a knock-out blow in early, and to decide the war, as some people say. If you get equality, the chances of the knock-out blow almost disappear, and in any case it becomes so risky that people are going to think twice and thrice before they undertake it. The whole problem becomes an entirely different one. The real danger to peace is a very strong air power on the one hand, and a de-
fenceless city on the other hand. I do not withdraw a word of the speech I made sometime ago on the subject of the air, and in which I pointed out the impossibility of complete air defence. That has not been understood by people who have not studied the subject, if I may judge by some of the letters I received at that time. Some people leapt to the conclusion that if what I said was true there was no object in air defences at all.
Obviously that is not the case. It is quite true that the bomber will always get through any defence you can visualise to-day, but it is equally true that the greater the force there be to oppose it the greater the chance of casualties among the bombers, and therefore the more thought before invasion takes place. Added to that, if there is the possibility of retaliation at once, that again reduces the danger. So I say, regarding the world as realists, the only thing that you can hope for, and hope for quickly, is an agreement on these lines. I do not believe, and I think it right to say so here, that the world is ready yet for the international police force. That is an idea that has never been worked out. I do not believe, whatever the advocates of it may say, that it is within range, or will be for some years yet, until the world is far more internationally minded, to set up an international air police force. I do not dread this House being carried away by a phrase, but many have been carried away by a phrase, and what I dread to-day is that while they are talking about this being the means of saving this and other countries from the air menace, the forces will grow at the very time when we ought to be curbing them by redoubling our efforts to get a convention.
Let me add this—and this is my last point: Suppose the convention fails; I would not then relax for a moment, nor would the Government relax, the efforts, if a convention on our lines failed, to start work the next morning to get an air convention alone among the countries of Western Europe, even if we could not get in some that are far away, for the saving of our own European civilisation. I agree most warmly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping with regard to agreements for the definition of specified areas for bombing. It may not be a great deal; I do not know: I am not sure. But I feel that coupled with
restrictions and equality—with those two things together—it would be a far better combination for the maintenance of the peace of Europe.
So I am not prepared to admit here to-day that the situation is hopeless, or that within a week or two we may have to come and say: "All our efforts are futile; we must immediately spend vast sums of money." In conclusion, I say that if all our efforts fail, and if it is not possible to obtain this equality in such matters as I have indicated, then any Government of this country—a National Government more than any, and this Government—will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores.

6.44 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No doubt the speech to which we have just listened has made all the Members of this House feel more comfortable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I speak for myself. It has been the first speech in the Debate calling attention to the fact of the grave situation in which we are to-day. The speech of the Under-Secretary might have been a speech delivered last year or the year before, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) smacked rather of the time of Marlborough, but the position with which we are faced to-day is the development of a new invention which has revolutionised the possibilities both of defence and of attack, and it is absolutely essential that the defence forces of this country should be reorganised on the basis of the new knowledge. In the excellent work entitled "War Memoirs," by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), there is a paragraph referring to the fanatical hostility shown by the Higher Command to any new ideas. That was the criticism made by the Minister of Munitions trying to move the old lines of warfare on to the new lines required by the Great War. He was up against the fanatical hostility of the High Command to new ideas, and what I welcome in the right hon. Gentleman's speech is the possibility of getting the Higher Command to accept new ideas. I want to
put before the right hon. Gentleman and the House a few of the new ideas.
In the first place, hitherto we have not been in danger, but now we begin to be in real danger. Hitherto the defence forces of this country have been directed to preventing our suffering in any war in any part of the world. Plans have been made for meeting danger from Japan; plans have even been made, I believe, for meeting danger from America; but now that we are in real danger the first thing is that the plans of our defence forces should be radically and completely changed. Everybody knows to-day that our danger is from Germany, and, therefore, all our forces which are being used to protect the sea ways to Australia, or to police Iraq, or in any other part of the world, are all so much detracted and subtracted from the essential feature—our defence against real danger at the present time. If we are to make our money go as far as possible, it must be on those arms that protect us from the real danger now facing the country. The Estimates that have been put before us show a considerable increase in the Army and Navy, and a very moderate increase in the Air Force. If the Higher Command really appreciated the new danger, and appreciated that it was necessary to concentrate our defence on that danger, we should have seen very different Estimates. Therefore, I would say that the first new idea is to cut your coat according to your cloth, and see that you have the best protection against the real danger, so that your insurance is the genuine insurance that you need.
Then it is necessary to realise another fact, which has become gradually well known, and which must be accepted by the two older Services. That is that the old gun has become obsolete. Now, instead of firing a projectile perhaps five miles, or perhaps 50 miles, you have a new projectile, and an intelligent projectile, with a range of 1,000 miles. You have now a projectile which, if need be, cannot miss, and, just as in the old wars the duty of artillery in battle was to smash, not the infantry, but the big guns on the other side, so now the new projectile will be directed in the first place, not towards London, not towards the troops in the field, but towards the aero-
dromes from which the new projectiles are fired. You have an intelligent projectile with an unlimited range, instead of an old-fashioned gun shooting a shell.
What happens with these new projectiles? Having approached invisibly, almost in the stratosphere, 10,000 feet up, they swoop down from there at a speed, when they reach their objective, of 1,000 feet per second—a greater speed, mark you, than the ordinary shell in my time, the ordinary shrapnel shell firing on an objective. You can no more hit an aeroplane travelling at that speed than you can hit a shell, and you might just as well try to defend London by trying to hit shells dropping on London, as try to defend London, or an aerodrome, or a ship, by firing shells from anti-aircraft guns at the new projectile. You have there to meet an entirely new situation. Just as in the old days we tried to sink the ship carrying the gun, because the ship was the platform from which the gun was fired, so now the whole art of war is bound to be the destruction of the aerodrome from which the enemy's aeroplanes come. But it is not only the aerodrome. Besides the aerodrome, besides the parked machines, you have to consider another essential feature, the petrol tanks. If you can put out of action the machines on the ground, or the petrol tanks which must be used in order to make those machines function, you can render the other party to the quarrel absolutely harmless. There was one man in the French Army who was said to have brought down, during the whole period of the War, no fewer than 100 enemy aeroplanes. It took him four and a-half years to do it. But, if you bomb an aerodrome, you get 100 aeroplanes destroyed by one bomb. Consequently, it is of vital importance to any air force first of all to destroy the other people's aerodromes and the other people's petrol tanks. That, too, seems to me to be a new idea which must be realised.
It is no good talking about bombing London. When the Germans attack us, they will not bomb London; they will not even bomb our Fleet; they will go straight to the aerodromes and to the petrol tanks—and you can go down to Sheerness and see the petrol tanks. Therefore, I would say that the first idea should be, if there is any danger, to realise that the aerodromes and the petrol tanks must be scattered about the country
and concealed—that there should be some arrangement whereby petrol can be got from the coast, where it is so obvious, to hidden reserves elsewhere; for, once our aerodromes have been put out of action in the first day, or the first three days, once the machines in the aerodromes have been destroyed and our petrol has been destroyed, the country will be absolutely at the mercy of the enemy. After that, it really will not matter what we do. The Fleet will have to repair to the Falkland Islands—in being, of course, but it will be in being where it will be of no use. The Army will not have a frontier to go to; no troops and no ships will be moved across the sea; and the civilian population can be dealt with at leisure. Therefore, that is the third new idea. The first is to prepare against the real danger and scrap all other insurance; the second is to observe that the gun is out of date, and that you now have the new intelligent projectile with unlimited range; and the third is to take every step in advance to protect the new gun—the aeroplane—at its parking ground, and the necessary ammunition for that aeroplane in the shape of petrol tanks and bombs. This is not panicking; it is so important that we should realise the realities of this new war.
In the next place, when we talk about defence, everybody in the Air Force knows perfectly well that there is no possible defence, in the old sense of the word, against enemy aeroplanes. If an aeroplane is 10,000 feet up and coming down, it is no use sending aeroplanes up; they will not get up in time. There is no defence except one, and that is to attack the other man's aeroplanes before they get off the ground. We should not do it. It is impossible to imagine a country with old traditions like ours doing anything of that sort. But I ask the House, is it impossible to conceive other people taking a step of that sort? The arguments that they would use in favour of it are enormous. They would say, "Our case is perfectly just, but we shall be able to argue the justice of our case much better if first you are settled. We take the step first of wiping out your aeroplanes, and then, we do not propose to declare war, but we will proceed to argue the issue." Bethmann-Hollweg is said to have said, "This is only a scrap of paper," but he probably did not say
it at all. I should not suspect Bethmann-Hollweg of doing anything in the nature of an act of warfare before warfare had been properly proclaimed. But it will be recalled that in 1914 we managed to intercept a telegram from Germany to the German Ambassador here, saying that the British Ambassador in Berlin had asked for his passports and declared war at seven o'clock in the evening; and the British Cabinet sat for five hours between seven o'clock in the evening and midnight, although the Germans had been told that they could start early. It did not much matter then. It will in future, and can anyone who has seen what has been going on in Germany in the last year afford to leave the safety of this country to hang on half an hour? Can we afford to leave it to chance? Therefore, we have to consider the fourth really new idea which I want to get into the heads of the Defence Forces—that we must reckon with the chance of surprise.
How can you counter a flight of aeroplanes travelling in the stratosphere from Germany to this country and seeking to put us out of action in the first half-hour before the declaration of war? I do not know, but I do think that that is one of the problems which really ought to be considered. You could meet the danger, in part at any rate, by scattering your aerodromes—possibly by having them movable. You could meet it in part by putting your aeroplanes in forests, so long as you arranged for a place where they could taxi out. There are ways in which it could be met, but I am absolutely certain that it is essential that it should be met. We may be quite certain that the Germans not only know where every one of our aerodromes is to-day, but where every one of our petrol tanks is too, and, if the situation ever became dangerous at all, it seems to me to be absolutely certain that we should have to shift them with extreme rapidity just before the danger came—which would probably be too late.
The next point I want to make is a point that the Air Force will not like so much. I asked the Minister the other day how many pilots we had in this country capable of driving these very high-speed machines, capable of being made into these intelligent projectiles. He replied that the whole number at that time was only 3,200. I see from the news-
paper that Russia proposes to have a million of them, but 3,200 is much too small a number. You would have to put all those men into the air on the first day of the war to make your counter-attack. It takes much longer to make a pilot than it takes to build a machine, and we must therefore have a larger number of people who can drive one of these high-powered, high-speed machines at 600 miles an hour. It takes some courage as well as skill to do a thing like that. It is infinitely more important to have those men than to have any number of Dreadnought battleships, or, indeed, to have any Army at all. The whole key to our possibility of surviving if we are attacked is the possession of a sufficient body of people who can and will drive those machines.
The Air Force is 30,000 strong, and I think that it might allow people who are merely mechanics but who want to fly, who want to get their wings, who are prepared to take the risks of driving those machines, to do so. Why are they not taught to fly? I know that I shall be told—I have been told already by the officials at the Ministry—that they have their duties on the ground to consider. They have large and exacting duties on the ground; they are all drilled; they all know how to fire rifles; they all march to perfection, and they have not time to learn to drive a machine. I take that with a grain of salt. In my opinion—and I am afraid that here I shall not have the support of the House—this is snobbery; it is the desire to separate the officer from the rank and file. The mechanic is anxious to learn to fight and drive, but that is the privilege of the officer. We cannot afford to have an Air Force which is run for the benefit of an officer class, or to develop the interests of caste. We must give every man in this country who is prepared to take the risks of driving these machines the opportunity of learning how to do so, so that he can become a member of a real reserve, a person whose services to the country may be absolutely indispensable at a critical moment. We could make this addition to our pilot force without the expenditure of very much additional money. There are 30,000 men in the Air Force, of whom 3,000 can drive. If there were 10,000 who could drive, it would still
leave 20,000 others in the Force, and the Force would then be three or four times as strong and useful as it is to-day. That is my fifth new idea, that we might have an Air Force in which the mechanics should be allowed to have the privilege of gentlemen and get killed.
There is one more point: that the next war is bound to be a short war. Of course, they said that of the last War; they said that it could not last, that it would cost too much. Do not, however, let us always judge what the next war will be by what the last war was. It is essential that we should be realists to the extent of understanding that new inventions and new factors may alter circumstances completely. I cannot conceive of any country being able to continue a war for a week after its air force, its aerodromes and its petrol tanks had been destroyed. Provided that its enemy was still in the air, the other forms of warfare could not possibly continue. What would be the use of an army? In any circumstances the Army would have to get underground, and even underground it could not be rationed or moved. It could not be shifted across the sea, for no ship would be safe for half an hour with the enemy in large numbers in command of the air.
The Fleet and the Army are now receiving in these Estimates four-fifths of the money we put up for defence; yet any honest man examining the facts must realise that the decision will come entirely on that one-fifth that we devote to the air. Vested interests in the Army and Navy compel us to go on pouring money into branches of the Service which cannot have any effect on the vital issues with which we are faced to-day. For police duty, for keeping the sea, if we have one of these wards that do not matter, for regulating Iraq, Ibn Sa'ud, or anything of that sort, by all means provide money, but do not spend money on those branches of the Service which in the real issue may possibly be of no help to you whatever.
If we are in danger to-day, it is absolutely necessary that the Committee of Imperial Defence should face the fact that the only defence against an air force is attack; that the gun is obsolete and has been replaced by a living torpedo of infinite range; that war may come so suddenly that your aerodromes will be
destroyed before you have had a chance of retaliating. Your Achilles' heel is always the aerodrome and the petrol depot. The war will be decided, not in five years or in five weeks, but in five days. In those circumstances, living in a world that has gone mad with passionate envy for our Colonies, for our power, and above all for our freedom, do not let us forget that we have our freedom to defend against a danger greater than existed when the Germans crossed into Belgian territory in 1914.

7.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am sure that we all appreciate the sturdy independence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. It is interesting, however, to see the lack of unanimity with which his speech was received on his benches. I do not know whether I altogether approve of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) coming down at 6 o'clock, scooping the cream off this Debate and getting a reply from the Lord President, whereupon they both retire from the House of Commons and leave us to continue. This is a very interesting subject, but if they want to talk about foreign policy and disarmament, let them use another Debate for those subjects and leave us an Air Vote in which to talk about air matters.
My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred in his introductory speech to my desire to separate civil aviation from the Air Ministry. It is quite easy to put up arguments that are going to be used against you and knock them out; it is a very old debating device. I have never yet made a strong case against this, but I am going to soon, because I am perfectly convinced that one of the troubles of the world is wrapped up in the too close association between military and civil aviation. I do not accuse the British Government of doing that; I think that they are singularly guiltless in that way, but that it is necessary to separate the two I am convinced, and the best example would be to do it in this country.
We have had speeches of various types: from those two hon. Members of whom I have spoken, which took place in the stratosphere, down to subjects lower and nearer to the ground. We have, however, been spared a good deal of those high-
faluting, long speeches to which we are used, on pure disarmament, which have generally so much disfigured these Debates from our point of view. I propose to make a point which I have made with repeated insistence ever since I first came into this House, about 14 years ago. I maintain, and I do not believe that there is any military expert in the world who will contradict me, when I say that if you lost control of the air at the beginning, you could never win a war. I do not think anybody will contradict me on that. Consequently, if there is one particular service upon which you must not run one vestige of risk, it is the air. Since the War we have spent £2,000 million upon the defence of this country. The last speaker drew from the Lord President of the Council, in a previous Debate, these words. Speaking about my right hon. Friend, the Lord President said:
I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), part of whose speech I am sorry I did not hear, touched on a point touched on by one or two other speakers, and that was the necessity of examining and considering the defence Estimates as a whole. I may say that I am in full agreement with that, and I speak for the Government when I say that they too are in full agreement. In fact, regarding the Estimates of the coming year, which will be presented within a few months now to this House, those Estimates will be examined on that basis, on the basis of the united defence of the country. We shall see what we have to spend, we shall know then what the disarmament position in Europe is better than we know it now, and we shall go very carefully into the three Services concerned to see where we can best repair deficiencies in the defence as a whole. I am sure that that is the right way to work, and it is the way that we are adopting this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1933; col. 1015, Vol. 283.]
It is perfectly astonishing that it has taken 15 years to come to that conclusion: that the great sums that we expend every year on these three Services are spent upon defence of this country and on that basis only. It is an insurance, which we ought to spend in the best possible way. This is a confession that Government after Government, on whatever side, have never looked upon this subject as one. They have allowed the old great Departments to struggle one against the other for their pound of flesh. The Lord President
of the Council makes claim to be an expert on air matters, chiefly owing to the fact that he once made a great speech in which he said that he could not find the solution of the difficulty—on that basis, of course, one might be an expert on many things. He said that he would leave it to the youth of the country, because he had no solution. In practice, as a matter of fact, he has consistently deprived his young Under-Secretary of the opportunity of speaking on the subject at all; that has been his contribution on the youth side.
I cannot believe that under present conditions of defence an expenditure of £40,000,000 on the Army, £60,000,000 on the Navy and only £20,000,000 on the Air Service is a correct proportion. No one is going to persuade me that that is right. There has been mention of blame for the fact that in the past we have been very low in power and that the Secretary of State for India is to blame. I want to acquit him of any blame in the matter, because only a few years ago many people wanted to do away with the Air Force in its entirety. It is interesting to note the "Daily Mail," for instance, to-day pleading for a big Air Force, but what did Lord Rothermere write in the "Daily Mail' in 1923? No one can accuse the Harmsworth family of not being friends of aviation. They have encouraged it in every way. I actually won £1,000 from them for flying a mile. This is what Lord Rothermere wrote in the "Daily Mail," signed with his own name:
I advocate the ultimate complete disappearance of the Royal Air Force as a separate unit.
That was backed up by that great power, the Admiralty. The House, with its experience, will know what a position the Air Force was in when it was attacked by the Admiralty and the "Daily Mail." That is a very strong combination. It had for years to fight for its life and, although it is true that, owing to the Secretary of State for India, we have not the Air Force that we should like, we have to thank him and Lord Trenchard for the fact that we have an Air Force at all; otherwise, it would have been swallowed up by the older Services, and a nice position we should have been in. If we looked at this subject as if we were a new country, a new
island in the North Sea, with no great Army and no great Navy and we had a certain amount of money to spend on the defence of the country in the conditions that exist to-day, how much should we spend on the three forces? I cannot believe that one single child, man, boy or woman in the country would lay down the proportion of 40 on your Army, 60 on your Navy and 20 on your Air Force.
The Lord President of the Council again to-night has done what was admirably described by the talented editor of the "Aeroplane" as "leading us up the garden of Eden." That absolutely sums up our position relative to the air. I was prepared to-night to vote against the Government if they had not given this definite assurance—I hope it is a definite assurance—that, if the Disarmament Convention goes the smallest bit wrong, we shall immediately introduce a Supplementary Estimate to bring us up to parity with other countries. It is on that understanding alone that I am supporting the Motion that you, Sir, go and have some dinner. I believe the country as a whole is unhappy. It does not feel at all safe. Every Member of Parliament, after all, is a trustee for the country's security and has a perfect right, not blindly to follow the Government, but to weigh these things up. I look upon the words of the Lord President as a definite pledge that we shall have a Supplementary Estimate.
I believe this question of the air is really understood only by the youth of the country. You will preach it without any effect to the old men on the Front Benches on this side or that. You will never get past these great vested interests of the older Services. They have done more to delay the advent of the air than anyone. It is so curious to me when we have a National Government, that although in Germany everyone is proud to wave a flag and is delighted to be a German, and when you see a rise in the spirit of nationalism in Italy, where the people are reviving the great glories of Rome, apparently in England it is not good form to be proud of your country. If you are a Member of the Government, whatever its complexion, this side or that, you are a sort of drab, hermaphrodite internationalist. That is the fashionable attitude for the ordinary Minister, and I resent it very much. I am certain that, if anyone came along
within the national party with a programme of being proud of the English race and not afraid to say so, they would have an immense following and sweep the whole Front Benches away. As I have said before, I do not believe that we are safe. When you get parity, even I admit you will not have solved your difficulties. If we had a bigger Air Force than our neighbours, we should not have solved our difficulties. We have to go further than that. But what I resent is that you are not, anyhow, on equal terms with someone with whom you have to negotiate. The greatest Power in the world at present could be the victim of the air force of a neighbour. That is a position that I am not prepared to tolerate. It is only owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-night a definite pledge that I will vote that you, Sir, leave the Chair.

AERODROMES.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House is of opinion that the early provision of additional aerodromes in these islands is an essential pre-requisite to the further development of commercial and private flying, and urges that all necessary measures should be taken to this end, including the provision at the more important centres of adequate wireless and meteorological facilities.
First, may I crave the indulgence of the House for the fact that I have no great experience of aviation. I am raised, by the fortune of the ballot, to this Icarian honour. Unlike Icarus, I do not intend to trespass beyond the limitations of my knowledge, and I will deal with the Amendment leaving out technical questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) will second and I know he will deal, as be is well qualified to deal, with those aspects of the question which require the long experience that he has enjoyed in the pursuit of aviation. But it does not require great knowledge of the subject to realise that success in the air depends primarily upon organisation on the ground, and facilities on the land will predetermine the use that you make of the air. We have heard a number of speeches, principally the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the Lord President of the Council, explaining the very grave posi-
tion of the country from a military aspect. I want the House to leave that behind. I want them to consider the question of our commercial opportunities in the air. It is impossible for a nation, especially this great nation, to be entirely oblivious to the needs of commerce. Time is money, and quick transit between different points is the first factor of commerce. The country which does not have speedy transport will be very gravely affected in the future. If you look forward to the future, I do not say that the world will be quite as pictured by Huxley or Wells, but we can be certain that a town which has not adequate provision for aircraft will be as isolated as a town to-day which has no rail or road service.
It is of great importance to see what were the conditions in our large towns at the end of last year. There were 17 towns of more than 100,000 inhabitants which possessed no aerodrome, and 34 towns of over 50,000 inhabitants were similarly deprived of that accommodation. York, which was once the capital of England, and Edinburgh, which is still the capital of Scotland, were without an aerodrome. Even Aberdeen was not sufficiently lavish to provide an aerodrome for its business men. If you look at your great industrial centres, Middlesbrough, Wolverhampton and Birmingham were all without that primary accommodation, which will be as indispensable to our sons as railway stations were to our fathers and the old coaching inns were to our grandfathers. We must not delay in this matter. England has the swiftest surface transport in the world. That makes the use of an aerodrome all the more important. Aircraft with a speed of 80 to 100 miles an hour may be able to land in small fields or restricted spaces. If you have large numbers of aeroplanes for commercial purposes, as I believe will soon be necessary, with a capacity of 200 miles an hour, you must have adequate landing facilities and adequate hangars for housing them. It is no good connecting this country for business purposes with aeroplanes of a slower speed. We must have aerodromes that are accessible. If a business man has to make a long journey from the centre of the town to an aerodrome he will lose some of the advantage of the air journey by having to traverse the built-up areas between the aerodrome and the centre of the town. That makes the
Amendment all the more important, because every day that a town delays in the provision of aerodromes the possible site for an aerodrome is being pushed further out into the country.
I would ask the Minister in what way he is encouraging towns to apply for his approval for the reservation of sites for A 1 landing grounds for aerodromes near the centre of towns, and also whether he is encouraging towns to reserve sites and to schedule them for aerodromes in town and regional planning schemes. In this connection I was very pleased to read in the "Times" a few days ago that the Minister had appointed an Aerodromes Advisory Board, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), to advise on the question of the reservation of sites for aerodromes. What is the full scope of that board's activities Will they be able to advise not merely local authorities but also the Minister on this question, and will they be able to advise on matters which will require legislation? Will they be able to go into the whole question of aerodromes where legislation is necessary? I have great fears about the building up of this country. We are putting up pylons and aerial cables all over the country which will make the provision of aerodromes in some districts a very difficult and very expensive task. I hope the Minister is sure that he has or will have adquate powers to deal with that menace.
I have spoken so far from the commercial and economic standpoint. May I mention the point of view of health? When we plan our towns in the future let us not plan them in that hurried and haphazard way of the nineteenth century which produced the slums that we are pulling down to-day. The towns of the future will have to have a factory area, an open belt of country and dormitory areas. It is in the open belt, which will be the lungs of the town, that we must place our aerodromes. It will be a fortunate thing that the aerodrome in the open belt will provide revenue to compensate for the non-revenue producing parks in the remainder of the open belt. I should like to link up this question of aerodromes with the question of the toll of the roads. The holocaust of the roads cannot be the
last word that civilisation has to offer in regard to our transport. Why do we have that heavy toll of the roads? Surely it is because of the blending of slow transport with swift transport. It is the pedestrian who has been caught by the business man trying to get faster to his place of business. Fortunately for the Amendment there is no such thing as a pedestrian of the air. If we can put the speed merchant in his proper place, which I believe is in the air, we shall have provided one solution for the congestion of the roads.
We are very far behind other countries in the provision of aerodromes. For that, I do not indict my hon. Friend. In 1930, on the Air Estimates, I listened to Mr. Oliver, who was then the hon. Member for Ilkeston, who moved a Motion on this subject. He claimed that in the enlightened days of the Socialist Government there were 19 aerodromes in this country. To-day I understand that there are 78. For that fact a great deal of credit must be due to my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, and the Noble Lord, the Air Minister. Other countries have not been idle. When Mr. Oliver spoke he said that Italy had 26 aerodromes, France 15, and the United States 840. To-day Italy has 48, France has increased from 15 to 136, and the United States from 840 to 2,030. These are very startling figures. It means that we have some leeway to make up on this question of aerodromes. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us how many more aerodromes are under construction, how many are under consideration, and what effort he is making—I know he is making considerable efforts—to get more aerodromes constructed all over the country. I give him full credit for what he has done to popularise aerodromes, and I give credit also to the London Chamber of Commerce for initiating the Air Port Conference last year. They convened a very representative gathering of local authorities. The conference was presided over by the Lord Mayor and was opened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales who, I believe, has done more than anybody else to popularise the use of the air and to encourage the use of the air, not only by the force of his personality but by the courage of his personal example. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us what results have already come from that conference, how far the
local authorities have responded and how many laggard areas there are.
We have always been the leaders of commerce. We were the pioneers on the sea, pioneers in colonisation and pioneers in the industrial revolution. We have never claimed to lead in the race of armaments; we have always followed and have been driven by necessity. But in this matter of air development somehow we are failing. Our local authorities are reluctant to embark on aerodromes. They say: "It is all very well for the United States to have 2,000 aerodromes, but they have wide open spaces. That is no use in a small cramped little island like ours." I do not think that argument will hold water. It is a form of caution which is very contrary to the spirit of adventure which we have shown in the past. If we are to keep our position at the head of the world's commerce we shall have to destroy that reluctance and to embark upon a wide policy of aerodromes. It is because I feel that we are slipping behind in the march of modern civilisation in this respect that I commend the Amendment to the House.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure the Under-Secretary will be pleased to have a few moments' rest from the excitement of the military side of his Estimates and to discuss the civil side, upon which I think there is general agreement throughout the House. I should like to join my hon. Friend in appreciation of what has already been done by the municipalities and by Chambers of Commerce in regard to the provision of aerodromes in this country. I think I am right in saying that 18 municipal aerodromes have been established and that there are in the course of preparation five or six others. I think the municipalities during these times of great financial stringency have shown very considerable foresight in pushing forward with what I believe to be the most important development work for the traffic of the future and in subscribing money towards the provision of aerial facilities. I should like to impress upon municipalities my opinion that it is vitally important that aerodromes should be started. It is very important that a site should be immediately procured near to the towns.
It is easy for anyone to visualise that with an aeroplane flying at 200 miles an hour, as they very soon will be in everyday flight, the mere fact of having to make a half-hour's journey to get to the aerodrome will be equivalent to 100 miles journey in the air. That fact emphasises the importance of having the aerodromes near to the towns. Every municipality on a main trunk line which has a large population requiring these facilities could at small expense obtain a site and clearing sufficient for landing grounds, and possibly have a hangar for one or two machines. I would not suggest that immediately any vast expenditure of money is necessary, but with due consideration of economy it would be well for every municipality to make a start in obtaining space and clearings for a suitable landing area for any type of machine. I should like to amplify what my hon. Friend has said in regard to the large areas in America. It is far more important for us to have more aerodromes than it is for America, because our climate is definitely worse and we have great difficulties in this country in winter in flying. It may be that one wants to ascend rather more quickly than one would expect, therefore intermediate landing grounds are a great advantage if we are to keep up a regular service for business purposes in the winter.
I am delighted that the Government are setting up an Advisory Committee, because I am certain that just as it is important that we should have a proper system of town planning, it is also important that we should have a proper system of aerodrome planning. There are places throughout the country where the establishment of large aerodromes is of vital necessity, just in the same way as electrical development. Under the electrical development schemes which we adopted some years ago there are certain main stations which develop the current and others are subsidiary. So I say that in the development of aerodromes there must be certain main points where larger aerodromes could be placed and smaller aerodromes, linked up with them, could be developed under a definite system of conformity, so that we would have a properly regulated method of aerial transport. Beyond that, the actual buildings themselves and the amenities of the aerodromes need control. There is no earthly reason why we should not
have picturesque and beautiful aerodromes if they are properly planned. On the Continent, and particularly in Germany, you see hundreds and even thousands of the ordinary working-class public for whom amenities are provided at the aerodromes, places where they can have tea, with nice gardens and flowers, where they can see the flying, can get interested in civil aviation and can get the real air sense which we desire to see in all sections of the population here. I hope that the Under-Secretary will bring these views before the advisory committee when it is set up.
My hon. Friend was right in saying that there are some municipalities holding up these schemes. It is a very difficult problem. You may get a new municipality which says, "We are not going to provide an aerodrome at present because you cannot tell us for certain that there will be a service running from it, or that it will be used to any large extent in the immediate future." When you talk to a business friend and say to him, "Why don't you let your commercial traveller fly round the country? On the Continent the work is done much more quickly." He may reply, "There are so many towns in England where there are no aerodrome facilities." Between the two we are at a deadlock. It is obviously the duty of the municipality to provide the facilities if ordinary commercial people undertake to use them.
What I consider to be a very grave danger to our future aerodrome development is the aerodrome position in London itself. You have now the aerodrome at Croydon. I am sure the Under-Secretary will not think that I am overstating when I say that with the large amount of aerial traffic now going into Croydon ordinary private flying is not required. In fact at Croydon they are not very pleased for you to use the place as a general landing ground for London, except in the case of air liners. That leaves us with Heston; Hanworth, which is rather in the throes of possible changes; Stag Lane, which is being developed as a building site; and Hatfield, which is rather too far away to be of very great service to ordinary commercial interests in London. It is of vital importance to commercial interests in this centre of the Empire that some steps should be taken to provide an aerodrome
nearer the centre of London. I can visualise a future when we have aerodromes, one necessary for air mail traffic going out of London, one for goods traffic going out of London, one for private owners' flying, and another necessary, as Croydon is to-day, for the great air liners going to and from the Continent. In future we shall require at least four big terminal aerodromes. But I do not see any effort being made to obtain any sites or any provision being made for the improvement of facilities.
Let me turn to the Customs side of the matter. I have spoken of the congestion that exists at Croydon. It is, of course, a fact that if you fly from Croydon down the main Continental route to France there is considerable congestion, so much so that my right hon. Friend has made provision whereby in foggy weather certain routes have to be taken backwards and forwards to the Continent. It seems to me that matters would be very materially assisted by establishing a few Customs aerodromes in various parts of the country. We ought to have one Customs aerodrome in the centre of the Midlands, one in the Eastern Counties and one somewhere in the West. From those Customs aerodromes, without touching Croydon or Heston or coming into conflict with the Continental traffic from the London air ports, one would be able to fly direct to the Continent. I believe that with the exchange of goods, which I expect to see in a very few years coming by air from the Continent, the time must soon arrive when we shall have to establish Customs aerodromes in all great centres of the country. With the congestion of the flying on the Continental route the sooner such Customs facilities are available the better it will be for all concerned.
Another side of the subject is the construction of aerodromes by private enterprise. I think great gratitude is due to the Light Aeroplane Club and others who have established aerodromes of a semipublic kind. But it is not so gratifying to realise that when one turns agricultural land into aerodrome land one becomes liable for very heavy rates. At least we are in a better position than France, for I understand that up to a few months ago no French aviator was allowed to land even on his own private field, but was obliged to land at some municipal aerodrome.
We are very sadly behind other countries in the provision of night flying equipment and aerodromes. North of London there is not a single aerodrome which has a regular night flying equipment in operation. People will say that no one in England flies at night and that therefore it is not necessary to provide facilities. Others will say that as soon as the facilities are provided, as soon as a proper line of beacon lights is established, and as soon as directional wireless is in operation, they are prepared to use night flying equipment and fly at night in England as they do in France and other countries. Our climate is no worse for night flying than that of a great many parts of France and Germany. It is only that we have not the night flying equipment in any part of the country, except in that small portion between the Continent and Croydon. Not even is the air port of Manchester fully equipped with lighting facilities.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the Government are taking steps to push forward this most important provision of night flying apparatus at the large terminal aerodromes, together with some method of lighting, possibly on the top of the electric pylons, to provide some guidance by night, or in any other way which can be devised whereby we can start night flying immediately. I am certain that not only from the civil side but from the military side also we are far behind other countries.
There is to be a race from London to Melbourne in October. How many pilots have we who would be capable of flying a machine of the requisite size and pace throughout the night for perhaps three nights, as pilots from other countries will do? Look at the night services which are run in America. Forty-three per cent. of the commercial lines in America are run at night. I do not wish for one moment to criticise the wonderful service of Imperial Airways to this country, but it is not with a feeling of pride that one goes to Cologne and other places on the Continent and sees every sort of Continental machine flying hour by hour in the night, and then to realise that in England no one is flying at night.
I wish to say a few words about wireless directional finding which is mentioned in the Amendment. There again
we are rather behind in our provision. It is well known on the Continent and in America that the only way to supply a regular service day and night through all weather is by having directional wireless equipment on your machine, or devices of a similar nature. I believe I am right in saying that except for Croydon and possibly Lympne and Pulham, where you get bearings for flying over the country, there is no method, even if one has fitted directional wireless on one's machine, whereby one can make use of it in England. When I look at the Estimates I am rather disappointed to see in the civil aviation Vote that the "Technical equipment stores and experimental services" is the only Vote which has been reduced. It is reduced by £6,600. I hope that that does not mean that the Under-Secretary is not going to experiment further with direction finding and with wireless services which are and must in future be of such vital importance to civil aviation in this country.
I agree entirely with what was said this afternoon about the excellent work of the meteorological section in this country. Having flown in a great many parts of the world I think that there are no better weather reports in any country. I do not say it is not possible for the reports to be expedited, but the actual reports as given out are unequalled by any reports anywhere. I ask that particularly in the North of England, particularly at the Manchester Station, it should be possible to send out reports. I understand that they are to be sent out at Cranwell instead of at Heston, and possibly that will make things easier, but there is considerable difficulty in the North of England in obtaining these reports, and also in using the wireless services at Manchester, which I understand are not in regular operation unless one gives notice by telephone before going up in the air. For all the reasons stated I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for having brought up this question. His speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), who seconded the Amendment, show how lamentably behind we are compared with other countries in this respect. This is
a matter of urgent importance, and one which ought to be dealt with straight away. I do not think that either of the hon. Members who have spoken fully indicated the position. I am afraid that we must say that the Air Ministry are responsible for the present state of affairs in two ways. First, they have been guilty of a sin of commission, in regard to the regulations which govern the granting of licences for aerodromes. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned that several towns were backward in proposing sites for aerodromes. Let us put ourselves in their place. When any town considers having a municipal aerodrome, its representatives go to the Air Ministry to find out the regulations governing the granting of licences as to size and so forth. They find that their aerodrome has to be 600 yards by 600 and has to fulfil certain other specifications such as absence of high trees or buildings or hills from the near vicinity. They look round for a site which fulfils those requirements and they find that land in the immediate vicinity of the town is far too expensive to make it economically possible to build an aerodrome there. Either they give up the idea or else they go further afield where land is cheaper.
That is why almost every town here and abroad which has an aerodrome, has it 12 or 15 miles away from the civic centre which it is proposed to serve. That is a matter which could be remedied. There are different types of aircraft, and there is no reason why an aerodrome must be 600 yards by 600 yards. You can land an auto-gyro or even a Moth in an ordinary average field. It should be possible to allow a town to start an aerodrome on a smaller basis and to grade the aerodromes according to the types of machine which they are meant to serve. A small town, where there is not a great demand for aviation but where there are a few commercial travellers and business men who want to travel abroad, could start quite a small aerodrome so long as only certain types of light aircraft were permitted to use it. Later on when the demand became greater and when they had perhaps saved some money they could have an aerodrome on a larger scale further afield to serve machines of a larger type.
Here comes the second trouble, and this is the sin of omission for which, I am afraid, the Air Ministry must take responsibility. It is regarding the question of traffic to and from aerodromes. The Air Ministry, of course, is a service department concerned primarily with military aviation. Civil aviation to it is a secondary issue and it has no control whatever or even influence over any other forms of transport. I have raised this question over and over again and so has my hon. Friend the Member for Melton with various Ministers and various permanent officials at the Air Ministry but we have always had the same reply—that this was a matter over which they had no control. I have gone to the Ministry of Transport and asked them whether they could do anything to relieve the situation. I was referred to Lord Ashfield. Lord Ashfield, however, has no concern at all with aviation. He is only concerned with the London Passenger Transport Board and there is no reason why they should go to any expense to provide better and quicker transport to the existing aerodromes.
That is the state of affairs at present. Taking the case of London alone we find that the aerodromes round London were constructed at the behest of a number of clubs who catered for their own members, these being nearly all residents in London possessing their own motor cars. To them it was of little import where the aerodrome was situated or what the facilities were for getting into London by omnibus or train. But the ordinary bona fide traveller arriving by air omnibus, on one of the services that are now beginning to operate in this country, or the private owner flying his own machine but with no car at his disposal in London, find themselves stranded. I use air transport myself every week because it is the best and quickest way that I can get out of London to my home, which is some 95 miles away. It takes me on an average an hour to fly between Heston and my home, say an hour plus 10 minutes if it is against the wind, and an hour less than 10 minutes if with the wind.
I can get to either Hanworth, Heston, Croydon, or Hatfield. Croydon I rule out and Hatfield is too far, and that leaves only Hanworth and Heston. At Hanworth, there is a very good train service from Feltham by which one can get into London in 25 minutes, but the
trains run only every half-hour. That is a matter in which the Air Ministry might have some influence with the Southern Railway to induce them to run a more frequent train service, and to make Hanworth a possible air centre for London. As regards Heston, matters are more complicated. There it is necessary to hire a taxicab which costs 2s. 6d., get on to the Great West Road and wait for an omnibus and it is a 1s. fare in the omnibus to London. That takes an hour all told between Heston and London. Thus, to fly almost 100 miles only takes an hour, while to cover the 10 or 15 miles into the city takes another hour, which hardly makes the total journey any quicker than if it was done by train, although you have the advantage of being able to start whatever hour you like.
I would ask the Under-Secretary to give us some hope that he will use his personal influence with the Minister of Transport, Lord Ashfield, the railway companies, and all the powers that be, controlling our complicated transport system, to get a more speedy method of transport from the centre to the existing aerodromes round London. I have heard the suggestion mooted of a central airport in London something like the Templehof at Berlin. Apart from the enormous expense and the difficulty of finding any suitable site nearer than Wormwood Scrubs, there is the question of fog which would be severe in the winter months. Possibly, for that reason sites round the South-West and South-East of London would be the best as the most likely to be free from fog. But in respect to London I suggest that the question is not so much one of the possibility of a central aerodrome, as of speeding up transport between the centre of the Metropolis and the existing aerodromes.
It has always seemed to me that it was a pity that Imperial Airways was started as a flying concern. I remember the Lord President of the Council making a striking speech in this House showing how particular industries were liable to be affected by changes of fashion and method, to which large and cumbersome organisations and amalgamations could only adapt themselves with difficulty. A sudden change of fashion might make a complete alteration of industrial plant necessary and a large concern could not afford to raise the capital to make the
necessary changes. But a small flexible industry, started perhaps by one man in a single shop would suddenly spring into being and defeat the large and cumbersome organisation. That speech I fear has largely been forgotten in the country although it was a very striking speech. No enterprise is more liable to sudden changes in method, and public taste and fashion than aviation. New developments may make existing machines obsolete. Therefore, it is a dangerous form of enterprise to start on semi-Government lines or with a Government-assisted organisation like Imperial Airways.
Perhaps in the early stages when there was nobody else in the field it was necessary to do so and I think everyone in the House will give credit to Imperial Airways for the wonderful pioneer work than have done. But I am not sure that in time to come it would not be wise for Imperial Airways to sell off or to delegate their actual flying activities to other companies, particularly railway, shipping or aviation companies, and to concentrate on ground work and on getting aerodromes all over the world on British territories where the best facilities could be given, facilities that would only be possible with a Government-assisted concern. I refer to such matters as the provision of directional wireless and weather reports. Diplomatic action, too, is sometimes necessary to get passage through a country which may be recalcitrant in the matter of wayleaves. Facilities for changing money should also be afforded, as well as many others which, as I say, would only be possible to a large concern. If there is to be any internationalisation of flying I would like to see arrangements of that kind being made and firms like Luft Hansa, Cooks and Lloyds and others, who have great experience could assist in building up a good ground organisation in connection with flying which would be world-wide. The actual flying could be carried out by small flexible companies, flying perhaps over very small routes at first and gradually extending their activities and making use of the aerodromes provided by Imperial Airways.
I would gladly see the shipping companies coming into line in the same way as the railway companies are doing with regard to internal services in England. I believe that in the future all mails will
go by air and that the ships which now carry mails are bound in the course of time to lose those contracts. For the sake of their shareholders alone, the shipping companies ought to take an interest in forming new air companies to run the mails. I should like to see not a weekly but a daily mail service to India. That would be really useful. Such a service would immediately take hold of the public imagination and people would make use of it as often as possible. Also, there might be a bi-weekly service to Australia. But these things can only be done if there is a good sound ground organisation which I believe Imperial Airways could well provide. It would also—and this is a matter of extreme importance—provide a means of employing Air Force pilots with short service commissions when they have finished their three years' service. It would open up facilities for the absorption of these men into aviation and give them experience of flying in all weathers, which is most necessary, if we are to build up a sufficient reserve of pilots and mechanics to meet any possible military emergency.
There are two other questions to which I wish to refer. One has been raised before, but I think that it is of importance now that railways are beginning to come to the assistance of flying. The Air Ministry should suggest to the railway companies that they should paint the names of the towns on their railway stations. I have often, in flying from one place to another, had to cross over a bit of high ground or a mountain range with low cloud, and when I have come out I have not been certain whether I had my true bearings or not. One looks out for familiar objects, and the first thing of all that one notices is a railway. If you follow it you know that it will lead you somewhere. If we had the name of the town on each station it would be easier still, and there would not be so many pilots, including Air Force pilots, losing their way. Suggestions have been made about gasometers being used in this connection. They would be of no use. You might fly all round a town in a fog and not see the particular gasometer, but if you knew the name of the town was on the railway station for certain, and, as you can see the smoke of a train miles away, you would be able to follow the line until you saw the name of the
town. You could then take up your bearings and carry on on a new compass bearing.
As far as weather reports are concerned, the hon. Member for Melton has a greater experience than I have of Continental flying, and I bow to his opinion, but, all the same, I think that if he had been with me about two months ago in the control tower at Lyons, and had seen the way the French do their weather reports, he would have been amazed, as I was, to see anything done so efficiently. Every minute, reports were coming in from almost every area of the country which could be covered. The work was done scientifically by watersheds. We get here fair general information in the reports, such as "a depression approaching from the Channel, and rain and a south-westerly wind will spread over the South of England." It is generally an hour or so late, but even so it gives you no local information which varies very much from watershed to watershed. This could easily be done by getting certain post offices in each watershed to arrange for messages to be sent as to the state of weather in that particular area. For instance, you might find that the atmosphere east of Reading was quite clear, with fog over the downs, and heavy rain on the other side. There is always different weather on one side of the Cheviots from that on the other and the same applies to the Pennine Range. I believe that more could be done by means of local information, particularly with regard to fog and low cloud if the information were telegraphed regularly to some central station and then wirelessed to all the aerodromes.

8.19 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I will not follow the remarks of my Noble Friend with regard to the past and future of Imperial Airways, because it would be difficult for me at this moment to pronounce upon them. The House was interested, as it must be, to hear such an authoritative account of civil flying in this country, but I was disappointed that he should have found the meteorological system in France so much better than our own. He says that our weather reports describe the depression coming across the Atlantic and rain coming from the south-west, but they have not done that lately, anyhow. We should be pleased to see in our
morning report that rain was coming from the south-west. I think that the suggestion about cheaper transport facilities between aerodromes in London was entirely right. It is the case that the advantage and the time that we gain in flying are very much lost and nullified by the time it takes to get to or from the aerodromes. Anything the Air Ministry can do to bring pressure on the Ministry of Transport to that effect, we will do. Civilian flying has been so successful during the last few years that the methods of transport have not been able to keep up with it, and I am convinced that the transport authorities will have to cope with the particular need in the course of the next year or so, in view of the fact that so many people are using these aerodromes and using flying as a means of transport.
In congratulating the Mover of the Amendment upon having raised this particularly important question in the House to-day, I should like to say that I am in complete agreement with him, and also with the Seconder. I should like, in particular, emphatically to endorse his view that no large centre of population which wishes to keep abreast of modern progress can afford to do without an aerodrome of its own. In my view, the increased activity of internal air services during the past year, to which I referred earlier in the evening, is significant. It is the beginning of a movement which will grow. Of that I am absolutely certain; but the rate of growing will depend necessarily on the number of aerodromes which are available. As the Mover of the Amendment said, an adequate chain of aerodromes is essential to an adequate system of air transport. It would be a thousand pities were the natural and inevitable development of internal air transport to be held up by an insufficiency of aerodromes. Personally, I look forward confidently to a very considerable increase in internal air lines in the next few years. I think I may fairly say that the local authorities all over the country are waking up to the realities of the situation. The conference at the Mansion House last December, to which the Mover of the Amendment referred, did a great deal to awaken and stimulate interest all over the country.
I think it will be agreed on this particular question that local authorities are definitely becoming more aware of the essential need of reserving sites for aerodromes in their town-planning schemes. As far as the Air Ministry is concerned, we are only too anxious to do everything we can to give all the encouragement and assistance within our power. The hon. Member asked how many civil aerodromes there are to-day in these islands, how many are in course of construction, and how many under consideration? He is naturally anxious to know whether there is any prospect of a considerable increase of aerodromes in the future. The figures are not as good as some of us might wish, but they are by no means discouraging. It is true that at present only 16 towns possess licences for municipal aerodromes. That is nothing like enough, but it must not be forgotten that, in addition, 10 municipalities have purchased aerodrome sites, most of which are already in course of preparation as municipal aerodromes. Nine other municipalities have the purchase of aerodromes under consideration, and five more have reserved in their town-planning schemes areas and land which the Air Ministry have pronounced suitable for the development of civil aircraft. My Noble Friend in this particular connection was rather anxious that the Air Ministry should be more lenient in its advice on the size and the sites of these aerodromes, and I dare say that in a great many cases he is right, but, as he would be the first to realise, up till now it would be unsuitable to sanction as municipal aerodromes, areas which were too small and which would result in accidents. Every aerodrome must be judged on its merits.
In another 83 towns sites have been inspected, and a further 72 can definitely be said to be taking an active interest in the question of providing aerodromes. That makes a total of 192 towns which either have aerodromes or in one way or another are moving in the matter. I am not going to say that this is enough, but it is a beginning. Requests for guidance and advice have been received by the Air Ministry from so many local authorities that there has been difficulty in dealing with them all. It has been found impossible to visit in detail these centres and advise local authorities in the selec-
tion of suitable sites, but the difficulty has been got over by giving temporary approval to aviation consultants to whom local authorities can look for expert advice. It is hoped that suitable arrangements for the provision of such advice and help will be made in the near future by the Aerodromes Advisory Board. I should like to explain that the Aerodromes Advisory Board has been formed for the express purpose not only of securing a sound design for aerodrome layout, buildings, and equipment, but also for ensuring that properly sited aerodromes are provided and that meanwhile sites shall be acquired or included in town-planning schemes.

Mr. EVERARD: Does the Under-Secretary mean that the board are going to recommend the Government to buy aerodrome sites or recommend this to the municipalities? I understood that they were going to recommend the Government to buy.

Sir P. SASSOON: They will make a recommendation to the local authority. I am glad to say that we have been able to secure as the chairman of this board the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), and no one with more push and drive could have been found for the position. We feel that with him at the head of this board we shall definitely get a move on in this important matter. I think that answers the hon. Member's question as to what is being done in regard to developing the technique of aerodromes. The functions of the Aerodromes Advisory Board will be to provide guidance and assistance. The House will, therefore, appreciate that definite progress is being made with the assistance of the Air Ministry in developing air-mindedness among the municipalities and local authorities generally, and in the provision of aerodromes or the arrangements for suitable sites before it is too late.
As regards the existence of internal air services, there are five actually in operation, namely, Inverness-Wick-Kirkwall, Renfrew-Campbeltown-Belfast, Campbeltown-Islay, Shoreham-Portsmouth-Ryde and Heston-Jersey. During 1933 there were a number of other temporary services in contemplation which I feel sure will be in use during the next summer.
In view of this increase in activity, the hon. Member's question with regard to wireless and the meteorological service is pertinent. Such services are scarcely less necessary to the development of internal services than are aerodromes themselves. Steps are being taken at once to provide for three mobile wireless telegraph stations, one of which will be stationed at Renfrew and another at Hull and two additional mobile wireless telegraphic stations are to be included in these Estimates. It is proposed to establish a permanent station as soon as possible at Renfrew, when the mobile station there will be available for service elsewhere. We are also considering the provision of wireless facilities at Jersey and the Isle of Man.
I hope I have satisfied the House that this important question is not neglected, and that progress is being made. I am sure that this Debate will hasten this progress. Nothing can stop the development of internal air services; but a little foresight, a little real interest now on the part of our local authorities can do much to render that development more active. In conclusion, may I make a further appeal to local authorities and municipalities on this particular question. I look forward to the future when people will only use the air as a means of transport, and I think that towns and cities which neglect to make proper provision for the establishment of aerodromes, or leave it so late that the acquisition of land is too expensive, will find themselves left out in the cold. I have dealt with the questions raised by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and I hope that the able advocacy of those hon. Members who have spoken will be of immense assistance in furthering this important movement.

Mr. TURTON: In view of the satisfactory reply made by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

8.31 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I want to congratulate the Under-Secretary for Air upon the able way in which he has put forward the Estimates to-night. It is always difficult for an Under-Secretary to shoulder such a task, but he has done so this evening with
his usual ability. I also want to congratulate the Secretary of State for Air on his great flight to the Near East and India. It is perfectly splendid for a Secretary of State to travel 16,000 miles by air in just under seven weeks. It must be most encouraging to his officers in distant stations to know that the Secretary of State is coming to visit them, and I am glad that he has returned safely.
The statement of the Lord President of the Council will be welcomed in all parts of the House. There was only one thing missing. He did not tell us how long it will take before the Government decide whether the draft Convention is going to be acecpted by the Disarmament Conference or not. The Disarmament Conference has been sitting for two years, and has achieved nothing as yet. Now we are told that they are going to sit again in the hope that something will be done. In the meantime, the people of this country are getting anxious as to the protection that is provided against attack from the air. We are the sixth air Power, and we are getting very little money for the Air Force in these Estimates.
The Under-Secretary talked about the Air Service being co-equal with the older Service, the Navy, but if you look at the Estimates you will find that the Air Service is only getting one-sixth of the amount that is provided for Defence. I think that is far too little. What does the Chief of the Air Staff do at the conferences which take place? Is the case for the Air Ministry put properly by the Chief of the Staff, because I cannot understand any man in the position of Chief of the Air Staff accepting these figures. I think he ought to resign sooner than accept these figures, because they are totally inadequate for the defence of this country. We are told that the world is ready for a gesture of peace. In my constituency it is all very fine to talk about gestures of peace. At Hertford during the War we had houses blown up from the air, and we had a tremendous number of glasshouses destroyed; and if hostile aeroplanes came over now, they could lay the whole of the glass in the Lea Valley waste, shatter it to pieces and destroy the livelihood of thousands. They are asking in my constituency, "What are
we doing about it? Are we providing proper protection from the air?" And I have to say, "No, we are not."
In 1923 the Lord President of the Council, when he was Prime Minister, told us that we should have 52 squadrons and that they were the minimum for the defence of this country. Well, we have gone on all these years, and we have only 42 squadrons to-day, and I understand that two more are provided here, making 44 in all. To-day in this House we have heard Member after Member saying what other nations are doing. One hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench said that Russia was training a million pilots, and so on. We have heard what Germany is doing in the air, and a Member of the Opposition told us a week or two ago that they had hundreds of machines there. We know what France is doing, that she is overhauling her machines, and we know what Italy and the United States have in the way of machines and men. All this is altering the whole of the air position. They have probably three or four times more machines altogether in Europe than they had in 1923, and I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether his air advisers now tell him that 52 squadrons are adequate for the protection of this country. I hope he will give me an answer to that question.
People in this country seem to think you can expand an Air Force very quickly indeed, but that is not correct. General Henderson and myself, when the War started, had the greatest difficulty in expanding our Air Force, because Parliament had not provided sufficient money for a reserve of pilots, a reserve of machines, and a reserve of engines. It was Parliament's fault, not ours. We must have proper provision made so that, if we have to expand quickly, we can do so. It takes a long time to train pilots. There is a pilot officer sitting opposite, and he knows how difficult it is to train good pilots. Hon. Members have only to read the book recently produced by General Groves to see what would happen if we had untrained pilots. He paid me the compliment of saying that we had better trained pilots in the Royal Naval Air Service, and I thank him for that. We took great trouble in training our pilots, but you cannot turn them out in a short time.
Another thing, when you have to consider expansion, is this: In the early days of the War we could get parts of machines, wings and so forth, sent out to woodworkers on sub-contract, to firms who did woodwork. They could build up these machines and parts fairly easily, and we got machines delivered with rapidity that way, but it is different now, because they are all metal machines, and there are not many firms in this country who can work in metal. Therefore, we want the Air Ministry to go into that question and to see if we have enough firms who can work in metal should an emergency arise. My third point is with regard to engines. I think everybody who understands anything about engines should pay a great compliment to those at Farnborough who are working on engine design. They are doing a great national work, not only with aero engines, but with research work, by which all civil engineering benefits, and it is recognised throughout the whole of the country by all who know anything about engine design. It is a very difficult thing indeed to design a good aero engine. You want the greatest skill in engineering science to do it, and then you want very skilled mechanics to build the engine.
Before the War we scarcely had a firm in this country which could build an aero engine, and we got the Sunbeam Company in, and I got the Rolls-Royce Company in, to build these aero engines. Now, at the moment, there tare only about four or five big engineering firms that can turn out these aero engines. I think the whole basis of supply ought to be broadened, and I want the Under-Secretary of State to look into that question. I have mentioned three things: first, the question of pilots, whether we cannot get more pilots trained; secondly, whether we have enough firms which can build these metal machines; and, thirdly, whether we have enough firms to turn out these aero engines in an emergency. We do not want to have to do what we did in the War, and that was to go to France for our engines. We had thousands and thousands of machines delivered in this country that we procured from France, and we ought to be very grateful to the French engineering firms for the way in which they supplied us with aero engines. I think we ought to look into it in this country and see that
we are more self-contained, because, after all, the whole of the success of these machines in war time depends on whether or not you have a good aero engine.
Out of these Estimates does the Under-Secretary of State provide any money for research work in building a new engine? I think we ought to have at least one or two engines being built to new designs, the best designs we can get in the country; but it costs money, and the firms have not the money to do it on their own. They must have encouragement from the Air Ministry, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State if he will look into that point, to see if more encouragement can be given to the engine firms in this country.
With regard to civil aviation, in these last six months we have had a tremendous amount of fog. We have had fog all over this country and fog over France, and when these passenger machines leave this country and fly across to France, I think they have a very small margin of petrol left, because everything goes into the pay load. Probably they may have petrol for only 10 minutes' flying in the air left, and that is rather nerve racking to a pilot in foggy weather. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to look into this matter also and to see if he can ask Imperial Airways, Limited, whether they could discard a little of their pay load—two passengers, say—and put it into petrol. If you were to discard two passengers, it would give you, in these big passenger liners, probably another 15 minutes' flying, and if you added that to the 10 minutes' ordinary flying that is left over, it would give nearly half-anhour in which to search for an aerodrome if the pilot could not find the one he was making for, owing to fog. It is a small point perhaps, but it is very nerve-racking to a pilot with a lot of passengers on board when he knows that his petrol is running very low.
Another small point is this: What steps are the Ministry taking to set that pylons and wireless masts are properly illuminated and to see whether they have any fog signals? We want to reduce these accidents to a minimum. I gave all my views on the Air Service in a speech just before Christmas, so I will not say anything more now, but I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell
us exactly what the Lord President of the Council meant by his announcement to-day. We want a definite pledge that if the Disarmament Conference cannot come to an agreement, we shall level up our Air Force to a parity with the nearest great air Power.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to switch the attention of the House over to a subject which has not been touched on to-night, but which I have raised on every possible opportunity which has occurred to me while I have been in the House. I am referring to the subject of the noise created by aeroplanes. We live in an age of mechanisation. Gradually the efforts of mankind are being replaced by machinery and engines. Mechanisation brings advantages and disadvantages in its train. It is our duty, as far as possible, to eliminate the disadvantages. In speaking of the noise of aeroplanes, I am not referring to those inside the aeroplanes, for if they submit themselves to the annoyance of noise it is their own business. I am referring to the unfortunate people on the surface of the earth who have to endure the irritation and annoyance of aeroplanes whether they like it or not. Not very long ago the British Association appointed a committee on noise—

Wing-Commander JAMES: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss a committee on noise when other people want to discuss the Air Estimates?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is discussing noise in connection with aeroplanes, and is therefore in order.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I hope that the House will not regard what I am saying in a facetious sense because there is, as I shall prove, a large amount of opposition to aeroplanes and aerodromes on account of the irritation caused by noise. The British Association did not regard it as a facetious matter and appointed a committee to inquire into it. They had a large number of letters from people all over the country in which various sources of noise were mentioned. The result of the correspondence was that a prevalent source of noise was the flying of aeroplanes. A noise may be harassing and injurious or simply unpleasant. When an
aeroplane flies round a church during service, as has happened, that is harassing. It is injurious when it flies round a hospital or a home where sick people are living, for they necessarily suffer nerve strain from the noise caused by aeroplanes. Let me impress on the Minister that the irritation and annoyance caused by aeroplanes is keeping back the development of flying. I know that flying must grow and develop and that it may he made a great boon to the world, but if it is accompanied by the establishment of aerodromes in particular places which cause hostility to flying among half the people round about, flying will not be advanced. In order to prove what I am saying, I should like to read one or two letters that have been sent to me as the result of letters I have written to the "Times" and speeches made here. Here is a typical letter:
In this neighbourhood, within three miles of Hanworth Park aerodrome, our evenings and particularly our weekends are entirely spoilt for us by the ceaseless noise of aeroplanes, often flown at a few hundred feet. If one is tired and in need of rest and fresh air, it is quite out of the question to obtain them in one's garden; if one is ill the house is quite unbearable. Yet there is absolutely no relief to be obtained from the existing machinery. The ordinary citizen, such as myself, who has bought his piece of land and built his house before the opening of an aerodrome, has as yet no redress if his whole enjoyment of them is denied him by persons who contribute nothing to the neighbourhood in which he is a ratepayer. I have tried all avenues open to the ordinary citizen, but there is nothing to be done—it is obviously impossible for any good to come of reporting the matter to the police. They are very courteous and do all in their power, but their hands are tied by the necessity of proving that the low flying was to the public danger. From the Air Ministry itself absolutely no satisfaction is to be obtained by any ordinary member of the public. Representations have been made to it by the Ratepayers' Association and the District Council of this neighbourhood without the slightest effect upon the intolerable noise which we have to endure. As to 'joy-riding' being calculated to make the public 'air-minded' or to promote civil flying, I can say very definitely that in this neighbourhood the behaviour of the inconsiderate and selfish people who fly here has had entirely the opposite effect and the majority of us would be thankful for any restrictions that could be placed on civil flying.
I will read another letter from a man whose name I will mention. He is Mr. Holbrook Jackson, and he said:
For some time now I have been endeavouring to obtain some relief from the noise from aircraft which has utterly destroyed the quietness of the district of Mill Hill, where I am a property owner, and where I have lived for nearly a quarter of a century. My experience has been similar to yours. The Governments of the day seem to be quite indifferent to the annoyance caused by unnecessary noises from aircraft. They will neither insist on silencers being used nor to flying being limited to those hours which cause least annoyance to the general public. In fact, they seem to be quite content to allow airmen to become a public nuisance.… Very few people can sit in their gardens at flying times on a summer's day because the finer the weather the greater the noise.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Before the hon. Member reads another letter may I inquire if he has ever suggested to his correspondents that they might move to vicinities where there are no aeroplanes?

Mr. L0VAT-FRASER: Why should they? Why should a man who has lived for over 30 years in Mill Hill move because the aeroplanes are a nuisance?

Mr. SIMMONDS: I suggest it is up to him to decide where he shall live and not to protest against an aerodrome coming to the vicinity in the normal prograss of civilisation.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: Are there no civil remedies available? Cannot he ask for an injunction?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: No. I could go on reading letters as long as the House would tolerate me, but I hope that the House will recognise that there is a grievance.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: The hon. Member speaks for a dying generation.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I see no reason why if a man has lived in a particular locality for years he should be compelled to leave his house because of the nuisance created by aeroplanes. I had intended quite seriously to speak as a citizen on behalf of many other citizens, but if hon. Members are going to take a facetious view of the matter I feel that my time is wasted. I do not wish to retard the business of the House by dwelling on it. I would only ask the Minister whether he can do anything or whether he is doing anything to mitigate this evil. I am sure that the right hon. Gen-
tleman himself will be the first to admit the business of flying is being retarded by the opposition created by the noise of aeroplanes. I canot help thinking that something could be done, and I hope the Minister is considering this matter in a serious spirit.

8.55 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I would like first of all to apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), but we have very little time in which to discuss the actual Estimates, and it did appear to me that there are other opportunities which could have been taken to ventilate what is, no doubt, a perfectly legitimate grievance.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: This is the opportunity to do it.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I apologise for having interrupted the hon. Member. It is obvious that the feature of this afternoon's Debate has been the pledge given by the Lord President of the Council, a most welcome pledge which, I think, will go a long way both to promote peace and to allay the very genuine anxiety which is felt so widely regarding our present position of inferiority in this vital respect.

Mr. PERKINS: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to have a Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench during this important Debate? The question of our expansion is—

Wing-Commander JAMES: As I was saying, it is the question of what other people do and not what we want to do that will decide the policy of this country during the next few years. One point strikes me as rather curious. Ever since 1919 Germany has been passionately denouncing those who speak of her war guilt, and yet Germany seems determined to leave no stone unturned, if another war does occur, which would lay herself open to a similar charge. The discussion this afternoon has hardly touched on the details of the Estimates at all. It has been concerned with parity and our relative position to other countries, and I think it is a very good thing that that should have been so, because under the present system, whereby one would be out of order in attempting to discuss anything not directly related to this one Service, all detailed discussion of air
affairs is vitiated, to my mind. It is absolutely impossible to discuss the Air Estimates without relation to the other two Services, with which they are completely interlocked. I hope we shall never again be faced with the need for discussing these three Services on three specific Votes on three separate days, and find ourselves unable to discuss the whole three together. The whole question of the Services and Imperial Defence is interlocked, and cannot be divorced. I am not at all sure that it is not actually harmful that the grievances and the vested interests of one Service alone should be ventilated on one afternoon.
May I give two brief illustrations of how impossible it is to discuss air defence without discussing the other Services? There is no single point in the British Empire more vital than the Suez Canal. What is the position with regard to the defences of the Suez Canal? Twenty-five years ago a defensive zone really amounted to the range of the largest available gun; to-day a defensive zone is the radius of an aeroplane. Yet when we come to the Suez Canal, that vital point, what do we find? To the north, Palestine and Transjordania are a sphere of control of the Air Force; to the south, Egypt is a sphere of control of the Army; and the vital point which they have to protect, lying between the two, is in the sphere of control of neither the one nor the other. It is a perfectly hopeless situation. How can we discuss the position of the Air Force in Iraq without considering the ground defence for the air bases? I shall not elaborate the point, because I should be out of order, but I can say this, that thanks to the present system of having two watertight compartments concerned with the defence of Iraq the Air Force in Iraq is to-day in a position of real gravity, and every Iraqi knows it.
I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary for information on just two or three points bearing upon this interconnection of the Services. I would like to know how the scheme of the seconded officers from the Army to the Air Force is going on at the present time. Immediately after the War it was considered to be a vital factor in the future of the Services, and as providing one of the main ways in which the Army was to become familiar with the working of the Air Force. I asked a question on the subject 18 months ago, and the answer given me was that
since the War 128 officers only have been seconded from the Army to the Air Force, and of those 128 only 52 were still serving, which showed that the seconding scheme was merely being used by the Army to get rid of their "duds," at least for the most part—sending those whom they did not want across to the Air Force, as is proved by the fact that the majority did not go back to the Army. Any really keen officer has been discouraged by the Army authorities from going across to the Air Force; there has been no inducement whatever to him to do so. I wish to know how that scheme is going on now, and whether the situation is improving.
The next point I wish to raise concerns the exchange of staff officers. We learned recently that at long last a small beginning had been made in this direction. I wish to know whether it is going to be developed, whether the best available people have been sent across from one Service to the other, and whether, when they got to the other Service, they have been put into really important positions where they would be of use; or is the whole scheme going to be blanketed and made a farce? I should also like to refer to page 90 of the Estimates. I am not going to press the Under-Secretary about this—it may be there was a slip in printing or rather a phrase has been mal-expressed—but under the heading "Royal Air Force Staff College" I read:
The Staff College at Andover is devoted to the higher professional education of permanent Royal Air Force officers, with functions broadly analogous to those performed for the Navy by the Royal Naval Staff College, Greenwich, and for the Army by the Staff College, Camberley.
The staff training of those two Services needs to be much closer together than "broadly analogous." There can be only one doctrine of war. Are the curriculae of those two staff colleges approved by the responsible authorities of the other Services? We cannot have antagonistic staff training, which I am afraid we have at the present time. We have the most efficient Air Force in the world to-day for its size, and have an extraordinarily efficient and trusted chief of the Air Staff, but that is not enough. The trouble is that the political direction of the Services has not kept pace with the changing times and the fundamental difference which the introduction of a third arm has made. That is the vital fact.
There must be complete reorganisation of the Governmental direction of the Services to secure that real co-operation and co-ordination without which the Services will merely fight for their own ends, without which we shall never get economy and efficiency, and with which we shall, in another war, go to certain chaos and disaster.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Am I entitled to move to report Progress, in order to call attention to the fact that we have present no Minister connected with the Air Ministry, or no Cabinet Minister?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): On that point of Order. May I point out to hon. Members that I have been here during the whole of this Debate and that the Under-Secretary for Air was here until a quarter of an hour ago?

HON. MEMBERS: A Cabinet Minister.

Sir E. GRIGG: I make no reflection upon the Under-Secretary of State for Air. The Lord President of the Council has made an extremely important declaration of policy, and I think that a Cabinet Minister should be present to hear what the supporters of the Government think about the declaration. There is no Member of the Government present. If I am entitled to do so, I propose to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. PERKINS: May I support my hon. and gallant Friend in that?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entitled if he chooses to move the Adjournment of the House or the adjournment of the Debate, in order to discuss the point which he raises.

Sir E. GRIGG: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do so in order to call attention to the fact that, after an extremely important declaration of policy by the Lord President of the Council, there is not present upon the Treasury Bench a Cabinet Minister or any Minister connected with the Air Ministry whose Estimates are being discussed. I make no complaint whatever against the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has shown the greatest courtesy in sitting through this Debate. I make no complaint of him, but when an
extremely important declaration of policy has been made, it is important that some Cabinet Minister should be present to hear what the loyal supporters of the Government think about that declaration. We have not had a more important declaration in this House this year, or during this Parliament. I feel very strongly, and I think that I am supported by other hon. Members, that we should adjourn this Debate.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: On that point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to take up the time of the House in making a speech in support of his Motion? If so, I hope that he will not be long.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

Mr. PERKINS: I beg to second the Motion.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I support the Motion. It is not only the loyal supporters of the Government who would like to have a Cabinet Minister here. Often in this House we have a row of, or one or two, Under-Secretaries in important Debates, and I think it important that on a matter like this we should have someone who can speak for the Cabinet. There should be someone here connected with one of the Services. The Under-Secretary of State for Air had to go out, but he has sat through the Debate with very great patience. It is not treating the House with courtesy. I have nothing to say against the Secretary for Mines who is representing the Government, but he is not connected with the matter which we are discussing, and we should have someone who is.

9.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I associate myself with this Motion. Repeatedly this year, owing to the House only having an Under-Secretary in charge of a very important Debate, whenever a question has arisen upon the Air, the Lord President of the Council has stepped in and said that he must answer, because a question of great policy is involved, and a Cabinet Minister must speak. If that is the case, this is a time when a Cabinet Minister should be here, to listen to what the reaction is upon the House of the pledge which was given this afternoon with regard to bringing our Air
Force up to a position of parity. There are other questions which we would like to know more about—the question of the time period, what was meant about the new air convention, and so on. We look into the future without any idea of what the Lord President of the Council meant. It is grossly unfair and discourteous to the House that, first of all, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) should come along and throw off one of his disarmament speeches, to be immediately followed by the Lord President of the Council, with a complete Cabinet sitting here, and that then we should be left in the air afterwards, to talk about anything we like without any interest whatever being taken in it by the Government.
There are other points upon which we should like enlightenment. One is the reaction of these Estimates upon the Estimates of the other Services. It might well have been a courteous thing for the First Lord of the Admiralty, or for the representative of the War Office to hear what we have to say with regard to the reaction of one Service upon another, but I cannot help reminding the House that it is only to-day that we have been given the Army Votes, and yet it is repeatedly admitted by all that it is a question of the defence of the country and not of three separate items. I hope that we shall divide upon this question, and that we shall show with no unmistakable voice our opinion of the Government's discourtesy to the House upon this question.

9.11 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I was not in the House when this Motion was moved, and I can only say that I recognise the feeling which exists in all quarters that such a situation should have come about. I do not think there is anything I can say, except that I have taken the most prompt and quick action that I can to remedy the situation. There is a certain grievance, but now that I have made an explanation I would ask if hon. Members would not be agreeable
to withdraw their Motion. I have said that I have taken the most prompt steps that I can, and within three or four minutes the defect will be remedied. I ask hon. Members to withdraw the Motion so that we may get on with the discussion. I assure them that I am expressing the opinion of the Government in saying that.

9.12 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but this sort of situation is often happening. This is not the first time that protests have been made from this side of the House, but on this occasion it happens that the protest has come from another side. The House is being treated more and more in this way. Cabinet Ministers rush in to hear some particular speech, and immediately the speech is made, out they go. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) appears here, and at once there is a flood of people who rush in from the other end of the Treasury Bench. Speakers of the Opposition or supporters of the Government are treated with the scant courtesy of being left with anybody who happens to be about to listen to them. I hope that the House will divide on the Motion.

Sir E. GRIGG: In view of the very courteous explanation made by the Chief Whip, and in view of the fact that he has assured us that a Cabinet Minister will be present on that Bench before long, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I should like to explain that nothing in what I said was intended to carry any reflection upon the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has shown great courtesy.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 159.

Division No. 150.]
AYES.
[9.14 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfleid, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James



Daggar, George
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Peat, Charles U.


Albery, Irving James
Grimston, R. V.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rankin, Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan, John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burnett, John George
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carver, Major William H.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Scone, Lord


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Douglas
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Conant, R. J. E.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Law, Sir Alfred
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crossley, A. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stones, James


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lees-Jones, John
Strauss, Edward A.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Dickie, John P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Doran, Edward
Loftus, Pierce C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elmley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Martin, Thomas B.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morgan, Robert H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morrison, William Shephard
Wise, Alfred R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Munro, Patrick
Withers, Sir John James


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Womersley, Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Greene, William P. C.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Pearson, William G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Commander southby.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

9.22 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: The range of subjects over which this Debate has revolved indicates very well the necessity of separating the two features of Air Ministry control at the moment, namely, civil air transport and air warfare. When my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggested in his speech this afternoon that, on account of common research, it was desirable to maintain civil air transport under the Air Ministry for War, I would assure him that he has been rather poorly advised on this subject, because other countries where civil air transport has been separated from war in the air have proved by their pro-
gress that the problems are so entirely different that it is essential to have two quite separate departments. I can only hope, as I have said elsewhere, that the Government will very soon realise the necessity for putting all our communications, by sea, by air and on the land, on a proper footing under a Ministry of Communications. So much for that subject on this occasion.
With regard to the one aspect, civil aviation, I should like to make two points. There has been voiced a considerable fear, among those intimately connected with civil aviation, that the Government are beginning to accept Imperial Airways as co-partner with themselves in the responsibility for the development of civil aviation. I want to suggest to my
right hon. Friend that, when the agreements with Imperial Airways come up for revision or for renewal, it is not a matter that is to be assumed as a subject for renewal. The whole proposition, which has vastly changed since Imperial Airways was first inaugurated some 10 years ago, has got to be taken into consideration. It may be that some of the steamship lines are now in a position to operate Empire air services. It may be that it is proper to continue Imperial Airways in this important work. Let it not be thought that I castigate Imperial Airways in any way for their excellent technical efficiency and operation. It is, nevertheless, important that the very point that has been made in connection with the air mail contracts in America should not in any degree be made here. It would appear that the last Postmaster in the United States discussed with the Air line Companies behind closed doors the operation of air mail services, and we have seen in the Press the present reaction both on the President of the United States and on public opinion in that great country. I wish to see that any possibility of that criticism being brought against the Air Ministry and against Imperial Airways is removed by a clear and open discussion of what is to take place in the future.
The other point I wished to make in connection with civil aviation is one that was made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth Captain Guest): on the operation by the railway companies, in connection with Imperial Airways, of internal air lines in the country. Some fear has been expressed that the company would act in a monopolistic spirit to put out of business all those internal air lines which my right hon. Friend mentioned in connection with the Amendment. I have taken some little trouble to find out the intentions of this group, and I am assured by Imperial Airways that it is their hope and their intention to co-operate with everybody who is at present in the air transport business in this country. I sincerely hope that the Air Ministry will take note of that intention of Imperial Airways and see that there is no unfair competition by this great concern. It has come very late into the business
against these smaller companies, some of whom have been operating successfully for a considerable period.
I will turn to the other aspect of the Air Ministry's activities, war in the air. Those who are primarily interested in this subject ought to congratulate the Government on several heads. First—and I think we ought to emphasise this point, because it was so much in our minds in the early part of the life of this Parliament—there has been, combined with efficiency, the most extraordinary economy on the part of the Air Ministry. When we want to see more done, we are often apt to forget the economy that is effectively practised. Knowing something of the detailed activities of the Air Ministry, I should like heartily to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State and his Noble chief upon their important work in this direction.
Then we have, as I think, a most important declaration—although I was sorry to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) did not seem to appraise this White Paper at quite the standard that many of us did. The Government here say that we shall have parity, and that they cannot accept the position of continuing inferiority in the air. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said that those were mere words. I do not accept that point of view at all. We hoped that the Government would be able to amplify what is written in this Memorandum by assuring us that if the Disarmament Conference failed or adjourned inconclusively, there would be an immediate preparation by the Government for some expansion of our Air Services. I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said on this subject this afternoon. Mentioning that there might possibly be a second effort to obtain an Air Disarmament Convention when the general Disarmament Convention had been proved infeasible he said:
If all our efforts fail and if it be not possible to obtain this equality in such matters as I have indicated, then any Government of this country—a national Government more than any and this Government—will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer he in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores.
I, for one, would thank sincerely and without any qualification the Lord
President of the Council and the Government for this most important declaration. I should, however, like to ask my right hon. Friend this one question. I gathered from the spirit of his speech and from the spirit of that declaration that there would be no undue delay before he put his elbow to the wheel and arranged for this inferiority to be wiped out of the political map. I should like to ask him if he will tell the House when he is replying, or through the mouth of his Under-Secretary, if we are right in assuming that if he comes to the conclusion that a general Disarmament Convention is impossible, and if after a short period it also becomes clear that this narrower Air Disarmament Convention is equally impossible, the Government will find themselves forthwith able and willing to carry out the declaration in this White Paper. From what I hear from all quarters of the House, it is our hope that the Government will feel it possible to amplify their important declaration in that respect.
There is one other aspect of this question of air armament to which I should like to draw attention before I sit down. We have been given these four, or six, squadrons extra, according to how one likes to calculate it, but I do not think that number is so important as the answer to this question. Has the Government reviewed the whole situation with which it would be faced if an immediate expansion of our Air Force became necessary, to see where are those bottle-necks, those constraining factors, that would prevent an immediate and proper increase in all necessary directions? As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral (Sir M. Sueter) has indicated, there are pilots, mechanics, aerodromes and hangars, and—very important—there are manufacturing plants both for aircraft and for engines. Has the Air Ministry a three-year or a four-year plan? Has it envisaged the troubles that it will have to face if it should be necessary, say, to double our Air Force in the course of the next three years? With some knowledge of aircraft construction, I feel that that answer is much more important than the indication that we have four or six more squadrons this year. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, that he
will be able to tell us that such a general survey has been undertaken and that in the Ministry there are papers indicating how certain factors in the problem may be immediately modified in order that a general expansion may be quickly possible.
Lastly, I would ask him this. As I review the activities of the Air Ministry, and knowing the immense ability of my right hon. Friend and his gallant chief, I cannot think that they are being allowed to go full steam. When some 10 years ago I had the privilege of becoming a member of the Air Ministry staff, I was told by a senior colleague, "If you do not do anything too good and do not do anything too bad, you will get on very well." I have the feeling that some such sentiments may have been expressed by a section of the Cabinet to my right hon. Friend. But I trust he will soon free himself from the yoke of this Egyptian bondage. There is no other sphere where one can for a small expenditure of money obtain such great and conspicuous results. We saw that flight of the Italian Armada under General Balbo. When I went to America a few weeks ago that flight by the Italian seaplanes was spoken of everywhere, and it has had a powerful political effect on American public opinion. There was also that extraordinarily fine flight of American seaplanes to Hawaii. There again there was a conspicuous effort on the part of the Government to show to the people the value of air power and to increase their air mindedness.
I hope my right hon. Friend will give some thought to this matter. He spoke of a number of service flights in the course of the year, but not one of those flights really stirred the nation on this subject of air power. In particular, we must remember that we are still, although many are apt to forget it, a great Imperial power. If I may refer to one Dominion as an example, in Canada they have never seen a squadron of British aeroplanes, and yet at their air pageants they regularly have flights and squadrons of American aircraft coming and demonstrating. I hope everyone will understand the powerful anti-Imperial effect on the Canadian mind of these American demonstrations. When I was in Ottawa in January, I heard the hope expressed
in several quarters that the Royal Air Force would send over squadrons of planes and show the flag in that great Dominion. That is just one way in which the Air Ministry might show a little more flair and indicate to the public that they are well abreast of the times. One fact about all these dictators seems to be their flair for publicity. I cannot see why a democratic Government and an efficient and powerful Government, such as our own, cannot keep abreast of the times in that respect. Those of us who are indebted to the Government for the economy and efficiency that they have shown in conducting our air affairs in the past year, will realise that there is one further hope that we have, and it is that we shall hear from the Government that there is to be no undue delay over this second air Disarmament Convention before they would feel it incumbent upon them to enforce that parity that they have so properly promised us.

9.39 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I do not claim to be an expert where matters of the air are concerned, and I only intervene because of very grave disquiet which has been aroused in my mind, and which has not been laid to rest by any statement that has been made to-day. I feel disquiet on two subjects, first on the subject of time and secondly on the subject of finance. The Lord President of the Council gave us to understand that he had great hopes from the mission lately carried out by the Lord Privy Seal. There is not a Member of the House, and there is not a man or woman in the country, who does not hope with all their hearts that the optimism of the Lord President of the Council will be justified. The right hon. Gentleman also said that, if the Disarmament Convention failed, the Government would prepare the next morning an Air Convention. If we have to wait indefinitely, as the last speaker said, for the results of that Air Convention before we attain to aerial parity, then indeed we are lost. I should like an assurance from the Lord President that, should the Disarmament Conference fail, and should there seem no likelihood of the success of the Air Convention within a short period of time, then the Government will bring forward Supplementary Air Estimates, and that we shall not have to wait until next year's Air Estimates before the
matter is again considered. I would also stress this on the ground of finance. The Under-Secretary, in introducing the Estimates, which I cannot but think must have seemed strangely inadequate to an Under-Secretary as interested in the welfare of the Air Service as we know him to be, stressed the fact that their size is in part due to the need for economy. Other nations are spending ever increasing sums on their air defences and on aviation generally. Should the Air Convention fail, we shall not only find that we have to keep up with other nations as regards our annual expenditure; but we shall suddenly be faced with a colossal sum to be spent on aerial defence and aviation generally in order to attain parity. I would ask the Government where that enormous sum of money is to come from and whether it would not have been more economical to spend a larger sum each year instead of letting ourselves fall so far behind in our air development.
To return to the Estimates on the Vote for civil aviation the Air Ministry in a spirit of self-congratulation states that, with an increase of £20,000, the Vote is higher than it has been for the last 10 years. When the House considers what other nations are spending for the advancement of civil aviation, I think that is no matter for congratulation. I notice that provision is made for participation in a service to Bermuda. That, of course, will be largely used by the inhabitants of the United States to go to a holiday resort. Glad as I am to see that even so small a British possession is not neglected, I regret very much that more has not been done to foster inter-Imperial air communication. The Under-Secretary told us how only a short time ago it had been possible for a business man to visit Iraq, Uganda and many other places in 80 days, whereas, had he gone by the old-fashioned route, it would have taken 180 days. I fear that when the Government consider the air they compare its achievements with achievements of older forms of transport and not with the air development and achievement of other countries. We congratulate ourselves because we can now reach India in six days by air, whereas it took 12 days by the sea route. I do not think that is a matter for congratulation. I think it is a terrible thing that we have not done more
to foster rapid Imperial air communication as would be possible if we were equipped and trained for night flying. That can only be done if we have properly lighted routes and radio beacons. I think that this is important not only for defence but for commerce and, where you are considering commerce, you have not to consider air speed as compared with the speed that you have on a boat. You have to compare it with the air speed attained by other countries. Trade will only wait for the best obtainable; it will be satisfied by what is good in comparison with obsolete methods. Time in regard to the air is all-important, what we have to do to encourage civil aviation must be done now. We cannot afford to wait; the air development of other countries is too rapid. To me the period of time in regard to flying has been burned into my brain in a way that I can never forget, for as a child I was punished for getting up at night, in 1909 or 1910, I think, to watch Graham White make his first flight from London to Manchester. Only five years later the people who punished me for getting up that night were telling me to leave my room and go down to the basement because of the bombs which were falling on London. Therefore, it is no consolation to me to hear what we may do for this country in regard to aerial defence in two, three or four years. I think the Government need more imagination. It is what we are prepared to do to-day that matters.

9.46 p.m.

Captain JAMES MacANDREW: I had intended to speak on the question of the subsidising of aerial transport services, but owing to the line the Debate has taken and the fact that I had a certain amount of practical experience as a pilot during the War in France, I should like to comment on what the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said in the earlier part of the Debate. He referred to aeroplanes bombing the aerodromes where the aircraft of the enemy were housed. On two different occasions in France I took part in an expedition for the bombing of enemy aerodromes. We collected all the machines that were in the area, something like 70 in number, and we went over at heights ranging from 100 feet up to 15,000 feet. We took with us bombs of every description. The
machines that were near to the ground were laden with ammunition. We went about 20 miles over the lines to a German aerodrome and we simply wrecked the place. We saw the smoke from the petrol going up a thousand feet, and every hangar, so far as we could see, was in flames. On some of our aeroplanes we had cameras and photographs were taken of the damage that was done. A day or so later we went over in the same sort of formation and did the same thing to another aerodrome. As far as I could see the damage was complete. During the whole expedition we only lost one machine. So far as I know—I was told this, and I cannot verify it—there were no more enemy machines seen in that section of the line for the rest of the War.
After that, we were sent down south, near to Cambrai. I cannot understand why we did not pursue the same policy down there. We seemed to carry on in the original way of chasing each other round the sky, but with nothing like the same material damage resulting. I succeeded in getting shot down myself in that occupation, whereas in the previous occupation of going over with a tremendous force and laying waste the enemy aerodromes, I never felt so safe as I did on those occasions in France. Apropos of these comments, I think it would be a good thing if the Air Ministry looked into the question of aerodromes in this country. As one goes through the country one sees very big hangars which would make most delightful targets for anybody who wished to drop bombs on them, provided they did as we did, fly low within a few feet so that they could not possibly miss them. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was correct when he said that the centre of attack in the next war, if we have the misfortune to have another war, will be the enemy aerodromes. It strikes me as being the obvious thing to do to get them in their houses and absolutely wreck them before they can come out and do damage. I do not think that the first aim and object will be the big cities, as was suggested by some hon. Members. That is a very important point to remember.
There is another point I should like to mention. I did not have the experience of going up in bad, obsolete machines
during the War, but lots of my friends did. There is nothing more dreadful than sending people up in obsolete machines simply to get them used up. The advances that took place in flying during the War were very great, much greater in my opinion than took place before the War or has taken place since the War. I am a little inclined to think that if we do have the misfortune to have another war it would not be long before the machines which are looked upon as being the very best at the present time would soon be obsolete. We cannot rectify that just now, but we must have the material to be able to supply as quickly as possible a better type of machine than the enemy has. That is the greatest form of defence. It is an undoubted fact that during the War the side that had the best machines was the side that had supremacy in the air for that time.
It is a question of experimenting in the circumstances that arise as to whether or not one can get better machines. My experience is that if you had a great many machines and you went over the line safely, as we did on some occasions, with a tremendous lot of machines, if it came to fighting nobody would attack you. Pursuing that line, the Germans were extremely clever with their travelling circus. They kept in one unit, and when it suddenly appeared in different parts of the line it was able to attack any who were unwary among our people. We do not want a tremendous lot of machines to become obsolete, but what we really want are machines that are better than the machines on the other side. I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and therefore I will not mention anything about the subsidy for Imperial Airways, but will close down.

9.54 p.m.

Captain IAN FRASER: I will not take up the time of the House for more than a minute or two, but I wish to express the anxiety of a Londoner for the wellbeing and security of London, not merely because so vast a number of people live here but because of the Imperial importance of London. I welcome more than I can say the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the reply of the Lord President of the Council. I earnestly hope that the speech of the Lord Presi-
dent of the Council indicates that there is a determination in the Cabinet and in the Government that we shall make preparations for increasing our air armaments, should the need arise. My anxiety is that which has been expressed by other hon. Members, that one conference will follow another and one convention will sit after another, during which time other nations are building, and we are only hoping and talking.
I cannot help feeling that it would allay a great deal of anxiety if at the end of the Debate the Under-Secretary could make some statement as to how long we may patiently await agreement before we ourselves begin to lay the foundations for a rapid development of our Air Force. No one more than I desires peace. No one more than I desires that every avenue of peace, such as discussions on the lines of disarmament conventions or air disarmament conventions, should be continued and should succeed, but I am beginning to have a feeling that the discussions themselves would be likely to be more fruitful if Europe knew that Great Britain really meant air parity. A constant affirmation of the belief on the Treasury Bench that some convention can be had if only we go on long enough seeking it, appears to be an invitation to other folks to keep us talking as long as they can while they go on building. I ask for an assurance that there will be some time limit to our patience, for we who live in London and represent London have a real apprehension that the present weakness should not continue.

9.57 p.m.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I wish to impress upon the Government the very great anxiety and apprehension felt by many people owing to the comparative figures of our Air Force and the air forces of neighbouring countries. Naturally we do not want to see more money spent than is necessary at a time when it is so important that we should reduce taxation and restore the cuts. Nevertheless it is wise to realise that it will be for no one's good if we as a nation are unable to defend ourselves against sudden attack, and that it will not be to our advantage if our influence in foreign affairs is weakened by knowledge of our military inferiority. Although in some respects it may seem a paradox, it may well be that the more strongly this coun-
try and the Empire are armed the more prospects there are of world peace, because we as an Empire do not want to attack anyone as our people are peace-loving and the most tranquil in the world.
So I welcome this small increase in the expenditure, coupled with further expenditure on the Fleet Air Arm. I think it is a step in the right direction, and that at last we are reversing the policy of the last 10 years and saying to the rest of the world, "We are not going on with unilateral disarmament." I particularly welcome the pledge of the Lord President of the Council that if these conferences do not succeed, if foreign Powers will not reduce their air forces to our level, we shall have to increase ours to their level. In the past we as a nation have never allowed our Navy to be inferior to the navy of any other country. So in modern times we must keep our Air Force at least on a parity with the air forces of countries that are within striking distance of us. I agree that it would have been a great mistake to go in for a policy of large expenditure when there is still a possibility of some Convention being signed, which would oblige us to scrap a large number of machines straight away. Naturally, we all want a Disarmament Convention signed.
If there are going to be delays the Government might consider the possibility of helping to increase our personnel of pilots by, perhaps, encouraging Imperial Airways to have services more than once a week to South Africa and the Far East. I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay particular attention to the question whether it would be possible for more first-class air mails to be carried by Imperial Airways. The Dutch are beginning to realise that it is possible to run two forms of service. There is one which might be described as a pleasure service, and the other for people returning on leave, who are not particular whether they get up very early in the morning and travel for a long time in the day, because all they want to do is to get back as quickly as possible to their own country. I hope the Government will consider the possibility of enabling Imperial Airways, perhaps by a larger subsidy, to have a more frequent service than once a week.
There is little doubt that as far as the fighting Air Force is concerned it is a very economical form of defence. It can be used either in land or naval operations. We have seen recently how the Air Force has been able to keep order in the Aden Hinterland and on the North-West Frontier of India, at very little cost compared with the enormous expenditure which would have been necessary if we had sent a land expedition there. There has been no illness or disease and very few people have suffered as a result. I hope the Government will see that we in this country, who have always had a Navy superior to the navies of other countries in the past, have an Air Force at least on a parity with any air force of any country in Europe.

10.3 p.m.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: I would like to congratulate this and past Governments since the War on having reduced our Air Force and the rest of our Services to a minimum in a very praiseworthy attempt to give a good example to the rest of the world; at the same time I would like to congratulate them perhaps a little more sincerely for having, in making this reduction, an additional motive about which we have not heard quite so much, though I fail to see why attention should not be drawn to it. Our statesmen have been gambling for 15 years and with the nation as the stake. To my mind it has been a legitimate chance, for the odds have been in our favour just as much as they were on that memorable occasion when Disraeli backed his judgment concerning the Suez Canal. With Germany disarmed and France fully occupied in keeping her so, it was reasonable for us to suppose that we had nothing to fear in this country for a considerable period. We have taken advantage of this, and to what effect? To-day, we find ourselves the first nation in the world to be well on the return to a sound economic basis, for we have been spending our money for this purpose rather than like other nations spending vast sums on armaments, the majority of which, as has been pointed out, are already obsolete.
I would like to congratulate the statesmen who have been responsible for these courageous, I might even say Machiavel-
lian tactics. The Lord President of the Council has been at the helm at many previous Governments during the last few years. I wonder whether he could throw any light on these particular tactics. He has the reputation, the just reputation, of being honest and simple and enjoying his pipe just as about as much as anything else. I have often wondered whether the Lord President is as simple as he would like many people to suppose. This great national gamble has been going on now for some time and in my opinion it has been well worth our while. But I consider that 15 years is long enough for us to take a chance. The time has now come when we can, in all probability, expect surprises at any moment, from any quarter, and we should be ready for any such emergency, especially when we recollect that it takes at least three years to organise efficiently one new squadron. Of course we know it is not the new machines which take the time. It is the satisfactory training of the personnel. I am told by experts it cannot be done in less than that time.
I welcome as much as anybody in this House Lord Londonderry's undertaking in the Memorandum, and the more specific pledge that we have had from the Lord President of the Council. I consider it a great step forward. There is just one very small fly in the ointment and it is this. I can remember many promises that have been made in all good faith in the past, but have not been carried out, even to this day. I sincerely hope that this pledge will not follow in the footsteps of certain pledges in the past which have never been carried out.
I make no excuse for saying a few words concerning the general policy of air defence. I listened with greatest interest to the views and experiences of a practical war-time pilot who spoke a few minutes ago, and I am in complete agreement with everything he has told the House. I, also, as a war-time pilot feel very uneasy concerning the general policy of our air defence, and since speaking in this House a short time ago on this very subject, I find that my views are shared by quite a large percentage of the community including several members of the Royal Air Force. I suggested on that occasion that we were concentrating too much on the retaliatory machine and not enough on the actual defence machine or what I choose to call
the interceptor. If the Under-Secretary of State for Air were to answer that criticism, I expect he would repeat the old story about bombers getting through when visibility was bad and would add that when visibility was good the interceptors could not get up to the height of the raiders in sufficient time, and as the raiders could cover such an immense expanse of sky, we would require to have thousands of intercepting machines to be able to find the enemy over such a large radius.
That would be the criticism levelled against my suggestion. On a first view, such a reply would appear to be sound enough, but I contend that from the practical point of view the implications are erroneous for reasons which I shall state. We have first to understand a completely new psychology. We cannot take the examples of the last War when considering what our actions will be on any future occasion. We have to remember that the raiding nations of the future are going to rely entirely on the success of air raids to win a war, and they know that unless they could disorganise and consequently demoralise us within a short period they would give us an opportunity of conducting reprisals. In those circumstances it would be no use for them to start at all unless they were reasonably certain of creating the chaos necessary for their purpose in a very short space of time. To achieve this it would be hopeless for them to consider coming over to this country when visibility was bad. They might possibly, flying by compass, manage to hit one or two odd spots in this Metropolis. They might even hit anywhere else a target as large as London, but I am told by experts that, flying by compass, they are not likely to hit any target smaller than London—that is to say coming from a distance of at least 200 miles. I contend that this would not be good enough to win a war. From their point of view it would be essential to put out of action certain strategic objectives, for example, Central London, Whitehall, the General Post Office, the British Broadcasting Corporation—in fact disrupt our most vital communications. With the same end in view they would have to first locate and then bomb certain rail-heads, ports and aerodromes.
Those practical objectives would be known to us as well as to the enemy and I suggest that our interceptors would not roam about a vast expanse of sky, but would be detailed to patrol over a certain number of defined vulnerable points. As to the interceptors not being able to get up to the desired height, it may surprise the House to know that since I last spoke here on this subject, I have made an additional and somewhat startling discovery in this respect. I think the House ought to know the details. We have a machine to-day—and this is in addition to what I told the House the other day—that can go four miles up in the air within 17 minutes of an alarm being given. Those hon. Members who have experience in these matters, will say that that does not amount to very much, but when I tell them the details perhaps they will appreciate the fact that it is a remarkable performance. Those 17 minutes include the giving of an alarm when one is not expected, the waking up of the pilot, his dressing, getting to his machine, warming up the engine, getting it out of the hangar, getting into the machine, getting off the aerodrome and going up to a height of four miles. I think the House will appreciate that to be able to to do that in 17 minutes is one of the most amazing achievements of modern engineering.
I should not be in the least surprised if our unrivalled aeronautical engineers have not got up their sleeves a wizard machine that would even surpass the extraordinary performance of the machine which I have just mentioned. It is a little disheartening that the authorities refuse to move with the times, and to admit quite frankly that circumstances have now changed. We are not taking sufficient advantage of this unique weapon that British brains have provided. Norway and Jugoslavia, have actually placed substantial orders for these machines, and I believe that other countries have made inquiries. We are just about to order two new squadrons under our new programme. Neither of these squadrons consists of interceptor machines; they are both to be bombing machine squadrons.
I will give another figure which, I hope, may interest the House. We have in this country to-day 512 machines, not count-
ing reserves or the Fleet Air Arm, mostly bombers, but all of which could be converted into bombers if necessary. We have only 36 machines that have a good enough performance for preventing raids in this country to-day. Surely this is a ridiculous proportion. The air policy of the Government at the moment is to concentrate upon the bomber and to ignore the interceptor. They say that they cannot stop the raiders, and that we have in the future to rely upon reprisals. I consider that to be a defeatist policy, and, in view of modern developments. I think that it is out of date. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one question. The Government have resigned themselves to the slogan, "The bomber will always get through." We have heard it on many occasions. Surely, an intelligent enemy would say with reason, "As England has not the means to stop us, and she admits it, let us raid her when visibility is perfect. Do not let us trouble about London at all, but let us concentrate on her aerodromes and destroy her means of retaliation."
I should like to know, considering the present defence policy of the Government, the answer to that question. I do not consider that it is any good replying that, anticipating a raid, all our machines will have been distributed all over the country in various fields or other places. I do not think that that is a sufficient answer, for the whole essence of the success of a raid in future will be complete surprise. If it is not a surprise, it cannot be successful. We have very few aerodromes in this country. Many are situated in the South, all of which, of course, would be known to the enemy, and the enemy could be over those aerodromes before we should be able to get our bombers off the aerodromes and to safety. I would ask the House to recollect that a bomber takes a great deal longer to get off an aerodrome than those small, remarkable interceptors to which I have just referred. I should like to make clear that, nevertheless, it is essential that we should have a percentage of bombers. But I contend that our policy from now on should be to concentrate on these new interceptors until we have as many of them, or more, as we now have bombers, and progressively to keep to that ratio. Incidentally, an interceptor is three times as cheap as the average bomber.
I believe that sooner or later, more likely later, I am afraid, the powers-that-be will have, reluctantly, to move with the times, and appreciate that our defence policy is at present being influenced by vested interests, and by out-of-date slogans, both very dangerous when it is realised that an enemy is sure to employ tactics for which we are least prepared.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council should be more or less compelled to be here to listen to me, but I know the House will feel with me that it is perhaps as well that the right hon. Gentleman should be in the Chamber in order to hear the variety of inferences which hon. Members may draw from his very important pronouncement this evening. It was somewhat paradoxical that when we were discussing the Air Estimates this evening the only Minister on the Treasury Bench at one time should be the Secretary for Mines. Earlier this evening we had a remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but it would be incredible for him to wait to hear a speech from me. I think, however, that even from me perhaps some answer is required to some of the things the right hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) will pretend in the meantime to be the right hon. Member for Epping, in whose place he is sitting. While the right hon. Gentleman was delighting us with the majesty of his eloquence, a phrase from that most remarkable of all his books, "The Aftermath," kept moving in my memory:
Death stands at attention ready to shear away whole populations en masse.
And yet the right hon. Gentleman with infinite subtlety sought to declare himself in favour of conventions to limit and regulate air warfare. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Disarmament Conference had virtually failed. In my view the word "failure" imports finality. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can be considered to have assisted the Government in their efforts towards general disarmament? He referred to the "harsh realities of the European situation." In my humble submission these "harsh realities" have arisen directly as the children of the de-
lays of the early days of the Disarmament Conference, and I can recall no incitement and no encouragement of the Government on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He cited a phrase which is commonly used by the Secretary of State for War and the Foreign Secretary—"the edge of risk." These slogans, Mr. Speaker; how they harass us! As the Lord President of the Council has implied to-night, every nation is tempted to say precisely the same thing. We shall all be standing upon that edge so long as air forces are nationally owned, and any nation which joins in the gadarene adventure of rearmament is merely accelerating the general stampede over the precipice.
The right hon. Gentleman later pleaded that Britain should recover her former freedom and independence. "Let us," in his own words, "preserve our full latitude and discretion of choice." I wonder to what former days the right hon. Gentleman was referring. Had we really, in his view, before the War, any freedom of choice in the event of neutralities being violated when we had guaranteed to preserve those neutralities? He spoke recently on the wireless, when he was permitted I believe to say precisely what he liked, in terms of respectful eulogy of the League of Nations, to which he referred as a "great and august body." But does the Covenant of the League of Nations keep us free and independent? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman recollect the terms of Articles 10, 11, and 16? The right hon. Member for Epping also said, "I do not agree that these international conventions are not worth the paper they are written on." In fact, he was saying, "Let us be independent, but let us limit our independence by being parties to some definite and limited engagements." I could not understand where the right hon. Gentleman was trying to lead us. In my view, never was confusion worse confounded. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to regulate air warfare. In my submission, the only intelligent policy is to seek to eliminate it.
May I congratulate the Government upon what I respectfully consider the magnificent way in which they have resisted what I would take leave to call the wicked and half-baked clamours which we have heard recently that we should quickly implement a vast increase in our Air Force? It may be justly said that the same diplomatic restraint is not
equally visible in our Naval and Army Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who always delights the House, said that the country was unhappy about our aerial condition, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) said the country was anxious. It is not the policy of His Majesty's Government which has made the country either unhappy or anxious; it is the "Daily Mail," in my humble submission, from which the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey quoted something that was written in 1923—and quoted without any approbation whatsoever. In spite of the admitted increase in our various Estimates, a total increase of several millions, there is still, I believe, going to be an ample margin in the Budget to make the life of the unemployed a little more tolerable, a cause which a good many hon. Members in this House have sincerely at heart. We are enjoying the reassurance that the surplus built up after so many years of painful sacrifice is not going to be frittered away in what I dare to call useless armaments, because I believe aerial armaments nationally owned, are worse than useless now.
This is a contentious world, and sooner or later we shall have, with some other Power, a dispute, and unless we transfer this aerial power from the disputants to the judge, the nightmare of the Lord President of the Council will indeed extinguish our daylight. We have not heard to-night whether the Royal Air Force is intended primarily for defence or for reprisals. I would not go in any detail into that, because there is not time, but I would with great respect quote from the famous speech of the Lord President of the Council on the 10th November, 1932, when he said:
I am firmly convinced myself, and have been for some time, that if it were possible the air forces ought all to be abolished.
I wonder if that is still the policy of His Majesty's Government; and does the rest of that passage still stand? The right hon. Gentleman continued:
If they were, there would still be civil aviation, and in civil aviation there are the potential bombers.
A little further down he said—and I am trying to do no violence to the context by my quotations:
In my view it is necessary for the nations of the world concerned to devote the whole of their minds to this question of civil aviation, to see if it is possible so to control civil aviation that such disarmament will be feasible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; cols. 635–6, Vol. 270.]
Have we yet heard the plan of His Majesty's Government for the internationalisation of civil aviation, and if not, dare I respectfully ask, why not? I hope His Majesty's Government will not meet us by any complaint about the impracticability of spontaneously producing furry mammals from the apparatus of the conjuror. Is there any reason why the internationalisation of civil aviation should be so insuperably difficult? Why should there not be an international company? Other things have been controlled by international companies. Moreover, aeroplanes are essentially international. For this scheme to succeed inspection, continuous and automatic, is a vital prerequisite, but in my judgment you need something more than that; you need an extra-national or, if you will, an international force.
Hon. Members have heard many times how easy it is for civil aviation to be prostituted to the ends of destruction, and if there were some international authority with this unique and peculiar power I believe the problem would be solved. Moreover, we should be sustaining the judge by that force which the nations of the world still persist in respecting. I cannot agree with those who are only able to sentimentalise about the League of Nations. In my view it must not only be made august; it must be made powerful as well. We went in detail into this topic as long ago as the 13th December last, and I hope the Government are not going to ride away with the retort that it is "Utopian." That kind of adjective is no consolation to those who may suffer from an inability to discover some solution. This scheme will remain Utopian just so long as too few people desire it. It is absolutely certain that public opinion in this country and elsewhere is embracing this scheme of an international force as being not a long-term but a short-term solution. I respectfully invite His Majesty's Government to give in this matter that leadership which our democracy expects and not lag behind the opinion which is already crystallising in this country.

10.33 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: At this late hour I will not detain the House very long. May I first be allowed to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend who introduced the Estimates? It is the only occasion during the year when we have such an opportunity, and some of us who take a particular interest, not only in the Parliamentary side of the Air Force, but in the service side, have a particular pleasure in paying this tribute to him to-night. Disarmament and the question of air parity have been so fully and amply covered by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President, that I do not think that it needs any words of a back bencher to support the Government, except to say that we feel reassured by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. We interpret that statement in the sense that if there be any unsatisfactory outcome from the Disarmament Conference—an unsatisfactory outcome, not a complete breakdown, but a complete negation of any hope—then immediately we must take it that the Government will take such steps as are necessary to safeguard the aerial defences of this country. On that interpretation, which I trust my right hon. Friend will tell me is a correct interpretation, I can tell my right hon. Friend that he has my support, and I believe the support of the vast majority of the Members on the back benches, and that we heartily welcome the Government's intentions.
We have had a long speech, full of interest, from the hon. Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). I do not want to go into questions of high or staff policy, because I am not qualified to do so. It is many years now since I was in the Service and many years since he was in the Service, and I do not think it is our job here to go into those questions. It should be completely satisfactory to us in the House of Commons to leave such complicated staff policy questions to those who are studying them day in and day out and who best know. But what I do take exception to, as I believe the majority of the House does, is the hon. and gallant Member coming down here and drawing a conclusion as to the erroneous tactics of air staff policy while basing himself on quoting serving officers in the Air Force as not agreeing with what the staff are doing. I do not think it is a credit to the hon. Member. I think that in so doing he is bringing discredit
on the Service, and I would only say that all of us in this House will dismiss that case, built up on statements which serving officers are alleged to have made, with the contempt which it thoroughly deserves.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will agree that serving officers have a right to their personal opinions and views as to tactics which should be undertaken, and I consider I had put them forward in a perfectly reasonable way.

Captain BALFOUR: Serving officers have a perfect right to have their own opinions, but I do not think it behoves hon. Members who have received Service opinions on Service matters from officers, presumably in a personal and private capacity, to come down to the House and use those personal statements to build up a case in criticism of the air staff policy. I will leave the matter at that, and let the House judge on the merits of the particular question. My only complaint as regards the Estimates is with respect to our long-term planning. In every sphere of our national life we are talking about long-term planning. On balance, it looks as though the Disarmament Conference were going to have a negative result, which I am sure would be regretted by every hon. Member, and the question is whether we are planning far enough ahead. The right hon. Gentleman gave me a reply to a question which I put to him the other day as to the number of squadrons which could be accommodated in the existing bricks and mortar. After all, bricks and mortar take a long time to put together. It is the bottle neck of the situation. The answer was that we could accommodate three more squadrons. Are we, in our long-term policy, preparing now to acquire land and get ready the plans for building further aerodromes? It would not cost money to start at the present time, only forethought.
On the subject of the training of personnel, we have heard from many hon. Members to-night of the importance of having a vast number of pilots, and I entirely concur, but it is not much good having large numbers of pilots in light aeroplane clubs if they have never had an opportunity of flying service aircraft. There ought to be some connecting link between the types of aircraft used in the
Royal Air Force and the types of aircraft used by flying clubs, and medically fit and suitable young men should have an opportunity of bridging the gap, and not at any expense to themselves. Returning to the question of planning ahead, what is happening as regard the fuel supplies for the Royal Air Force? I was seriously disturbed the other day when the right hon. Gentleman said that 50 per cent. of our oil came from Russia. In reply to a supplementary question he said we could not get elsewhere suitable supplies for our engines. The first principle of Imperial Defence is to be self-sufficient so far as possible, and if we cannot get Empire supplies of oil we had better change our engines for engines which will take oil obtainable from sources within the Empire, or, alternatively, we should look round to find some suitable Empire source of the particular type of oil required. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that that problem is being overcome in one or other of these ways.
Finally, I wish to ask what is happening as regards co-ordination in Imperial defence. The very mobility of our air arm is a new opportunity for the Empire to have an Imperial air-defence policy. The very mobility of squadrons which can fly from one end of the Empire to the other in a very short space of time allows us to look ahead without being clogged by the methods of the past. I believe that our Dominions are willing and anxious to carry their fair share of Imperial defence. At present they are not doing so. We spend approximately £2 2s. per head in this country upon armaments; Australia 18s., Canada 5s. and South Africa 2s. 6d. I am not casting any reflection on those Dominions because of the small amount which they spend. I believe that they would be willing to co-operate and to spend more in the future than they have spent in the past if there were more mobility in building up an Imperial defence scheme.
There was a great outcry in the newspapers a little while ago upon the subject of the Singapore Defence Conference between our authorities and Australian defence authorities. We could go much further than that, and the Singapore Defence Conference might be continued until finally we had an Imperial Defence Conference in which an Imperial defence
policy could be hammered out, based primarily upon the mobility of the Royal Air Force. The Estimates are all that we can expect, when they are taken in conjunction with the statement made by the Lord President of the Council. I think that in this House we have one desire, which is that we should get away from the old archaic ideas of defence which existed when there were only the Army and the Navy. We should realise that there are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and that, as time progresses and we get older, the Royal Air Force will play an ever-increasing part in Imperial defence.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should be very sorry if this Debate came to an end without two or three sentences from this side of the House, seeing that no one from this side has spoken since the very important pronouncement of the Lord President of the Council. I do not want our side to be misunderstood. I merely rise to say that it was a grave pronouncement, as everyone recognised at the time. I cannot speak at this moment officially on behalf of the party, but I merely say that the announcement of the Lord President of the Council will be given very careful consideration, and I merely ask for our party freedom without any commitment at all.

10.43 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: May I be allowed to answer some of the questions that have been put during the course of the Debate? As a matter of fact, there have been very few detailed points, because hon. Members know so much about the Royal Air Force that there are very few points about which they want to ask. The Debate has proceeded on very broad lines. The pronouncement which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has made has given complete satisfaction to all those who have been anxious to know the policy of the Government. The speech which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) made—

Captain GUEST: I do not want to interfere with the right hon. Gentleman in what he is saying, but to correct him before he proceeds with his sentence. He said that hon. Members were satisfied in every degree with what the Lord President of the Council has said. I can only
submit to him for his assistance that there are grave doubts as to whether there is some time limit attached to the statement made by the Lord President of the Council.

Sir P. SASSOON: When I said that hon. Members were satisfied, that was the impression that I had received. I cannot, of course, add anything to what has been said, and to what I considered was a very full, frank and fair statement. After the words which fell from the Lord President of the Council hon. Members who have any confidence in the Government, must have confidence that the Government will do everything they feel is necessary for the security and safety of these islands. I was beginning to comment upon the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet who made as usual a very interesting contribution. His suggestion about the possibility of enabling pilots who are not members of the reserve and not in the Royal Air Force to get a certain amount of training in service machines was particularly interesting, and is one which I am certain the Air Ministry will consider, as it will the one regarding inter-Imperial communications. With regard to the question of oil fuel, I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend was disappointed the other day when I was not able to say that any of the oil used came from Imperial sources, but we are doing everything we possibly can to try to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and hope in the course of the next year to be able to make some arrangement for getting either all or certain supplies of this particular oil from Imperial sources.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Drake (Captain Guest) asked me some questions about the arrangements recently concluded between the railway companies and Imperial Airways for the operation of internal services in this country. In the first place, he asked me whether the Air Ministry were aware that these arrangements were pending. The answer is in the affirmative. The Air Ministry, however, saw no reason to intervene, if that is what my right hon. and gallant Friend meant. After all, it is five years since these particular powers were conferred upon the railways, and I would further point out that there is one outstanding lesson which has been carefully and laboriously learnt in the field of transport, and that is the necessity for
avoiding anything like cut-throat competition, both between the older systems themselves and between the older and the new systems. There is nothing new in principle in the understanding that has been reached, if it be a definite understanding, between the railways and Imperial Airways. That such an understanding might in certain circumstances lead to abuse is undeniable, but I suggest that we should not assume that any abuse will arise in this case. If, however, the new machinery were used to stifle, on behalf of vested interests, the development of internal air transport in this country, the Air Ministry would take appropriate measures to remedy the situation. That, I think, is also a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Duddeston Division of Birmingham (Mr. Simmonds), who raised the same point, and who also made the interesting suggestion that detachments of flights, with a British aircraft carrier, might visit Canada and show the flag there. That suggestion will be given careful consideration.
We had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Captain J. MacAndrew), who spoke as an ex-pilot and with all his war experience, and I think the House listened with the greatest possible interest to all that he had to say. I quite agree with the necessity for keeping up-to-date as much as we possibly can, and that was why I spoke of the great importance of technical developments, and of how anxious the Air Ministry are that their research department shall always be kept up-to-date. Everyone who knows the work of that department realises how valuable and efficient it is.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) made a point about the employment of officers from the Army. There is a scheme on foot, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, not only for the seconding of officers from the Army to the Royal Air Force, but also, after they have returned to the Army, for their coming back again for a further period. Then there is the employment of Air Force officers in staff appointments, and there is also the question of the joint staff, and the importance of having a Joint Staff College. I fully realise that it would be an excellent thing if the three staff colleges were on the same spot, but
everybody will agree that each individual staff college has to work out its own particular problems. We have at present a considerable amount of co-operation, including joint exercises and so on, and also the Imperial Defence College, which is exactly what the hon. Member suggests. Everything that can be done in that connection is being done short of moving all three staff colleges into one spot. We are fully aware of the importance of having as much co-operation as possible between the three Services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) raised a point with which I must deal, because he has been waiting patiently for a year to raise it, and if I do not reply to him now he will raise it again on some other occasion and feel dissatisfied with the answer. The point is one of interest to hon. Members of the House, and perhaps more to people outside: it concerns the noise of aeroplanes. I should like to assure him, and to assure hon. Members, that the Air Ministry is examining this question with the greatest possible sympathy and attention. Nevertheless, to appreciate that the noise of an aeroplane can be tiresome, irritating and even harmful, as the hon. Member made out, is one thing, but to devise an adequate remedy for it is another. There are regulations on the subject. Flying in a manner calculated to cause alarm or annoyance can be dealt with by the police. It is, however, just as impossible to prevent occasional young and foolish pilots from doing tiresome and irritating things with aeroplanes as it is to prevent young and foolish people from doing tiresome and irritating things with sports cars or motor bicycles, or even to prevent the unseemly noises that they are able to make with no other instruments than those with which nature has endowed them. There are regulations against flying low over London and against flying over churches during service hours, and everything possible is done to see that those regulations are applied.
When one thinks of the amount of flying that is done, not only by commercial and service aeroplanes but also by private owners, one cannot say that these offences are increasing anything like in proportion to the way in which flying itself is increasing. We must keep a sense of proportion about these things. I suppose that there were far louder outcries against the noise, dirt and danger of railways than there is now against flying. We have become used to railways, and to realising that people who live near them have to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience. The same applies now to people who live near aerodromes and on air routes. We live in a noisy age, and we must face the fact. By all means let us do all we can to minimise the evil, but to put silencers on to aeroplanes, as has been suggested, is not practical politics. Perhaps one day aeroplanes will be sufficiently powerful and efficient to enable silencers to be put on them, and possibly when that day arrives the people who live on air routes will lie awake at night listening for the familiar roar that never comes. There must be a certain amount of give and take. Modern invention brings with it advantages as well as disadvantages, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Although the hon. Member is not here, I hope he will feel that I have taken great care of his interests and I assure him once more that the Air Ministry is doing everything it can to give sympathetic attention to this very important point. If there are any points that I have not dealt with, I will write to hon. Members who have raised them, but in any event there is always the Report stage to look forward to.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 22.

Division No. 151.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Browne, Captain A. C.


Albery, Irving James
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bernays, Robert
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Apsley, Lord
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Carver, Major William H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rankin, Robert


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rea, Walter Russell


Conant, R. J. E.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rold, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Remer, John R.


Craven-Ellis, William
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Law, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cross, R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denman, Hon. R D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Denville, Alfred
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Scone, Lord


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William
Somervell, Sir Donald


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spens, William Patrick


Everard, W. Lindsay
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Martin, Thomas B.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (p'dd'gt'n, S.)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tree, Ronald


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greene, William P. C.
Morgan, Robert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grigg, Sir Edward
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hornby, Frank
Pearson, William G.
Wise, Alfred R.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.
Womersley, Walter James


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.



Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Radford, E. A.



Hurd, Sir Percy
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.





NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 31,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of those serv-
ing in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935.

11.5 p.m.

Sir E. GRIGG: This Vote deals with numbers, and without wishing to detain the Committee for more than a short time I would say one or two words upon it, as the most important element in Air as in all defence. The hon. and gallant
Member for South Ayrshire (Captain MacAndrew) made a deeply interesting speech just now, as I am sure everyone agrees. He made the very interesting, and I believe accurate observation, that very likely all the machines which we build now will become obsolete in the first few weeks of war. What really matters is the training of the personnel. That is the matter covered by this Vote. We have been able to call upon a splendid spirit in this country with regard to personnel. It is shown, for instance, in the spirit which takes many of our young men to the service of the Auxiliary Air Squadrons. These are, I think, the first Air Estimates since a distinguished and gallant Member of this House gave his life in the service of one of the Auxiliary Air Squadrons. I refer to the late Lord Knebworth. He was a splendid example of the spirit which is shown in work and service of this kind for the country, and I think we ought to pay a tribute to his memory.
On this matter of personnel it is necessary to recognise the fact that leeway once gathered is very difficult to make up, and it is upon that point that some of us feel great anxiety. It is upon that point that I would like to make some allusion to what fell from the Lord President of the Council earlier to-day. In doing so, may I express my appreciation of the Prime Minister and of the Lord President for having paid attention to the feeling of their supporters and having returned to the Treasury Bench? I should like to repeat that in calling attention to the absence of a Cabinet Minister from the Front Bench I was making no reflection whatever on the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Air has conducted his part in these proceedings. He gave a most lucid and most authoritative account of his Estimates, and no one could wish for anything more courteous or more efficient than his conduct and his share in this Debate. But the Government followed an unusual course on a Service Estimate. The Lord President got up in the middle of it and made an extremely important declaration of policy. The fact that such a declaration was made in such a Debate shows the very close relation between Air policy and foreign policy at the present time. Everyone knows how delicate that connection is, and when a
declaration of that kind has been made I think it is at least for us to ask that some Member of the Cabinet should be present to hear what Members have to say. I can quite understand that the Prime Minister and the Lord President might have other engagements, but in that case there are other Cabinet Ministers. There are the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal, both very closely concerned in this Debate.
Having made that reference to explain what I did, let me return to the Lord President's speech. The Lord President gave us, as he nearly always does upon a subject of this kind, a speech of inspired common sense. I accept his appeal that we should not at this moment exaggerate. I agree that the danger is not actual or urgent at the present time. In fact I believe the greater danger is that we should do anything which would promote a new race in armaments. There is greater danger in that, than there is imminent danger to our cities or our coasts. It is right that we should try everything to get the Convention which the Government have laid before the other nations in Europe. It is right that we should avoid anything while these negotiations are still open—even to the last minute—that looks like breaking down the negotiations, or giving a handle to those who say that we are not sincere. But there must be a time limit to that process and it is on that point that many of us feel anxiety about the Government's position.
We would like an assurance from the Government to this effect, that sooner or later, and it must be within the next few weeks, it will be known whether the present approach to this disarmament problem is going to succeed or break down altogether. The moment will come when, if we are sincere about it, we should set about making a new approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that the first step on the new approach must be to say that we will achieve parity—at whatever level other nations decree, but parity—and that we will not be content with less. Let us hope that it will be at a low level, but if they insist on making it a high level let us make it clear that we will have parity and have it, at the earliest possible moment, whatever level they may choose.

Mr. MANDER: Including Germany?

Sir E. GRIGG: Including Germany. I do not think it will be sufficient to leave it at that. Having made that declaration, which I believe would have its effect, which would I believe make a new setting for the discussions on the limitation of air arms, I hope the Government will go on, as the Lord President of the Council suggested, to see if they cannot get an Air Convention, even if they cannot get a wider convention in regard to all arms. But if they are going to approach this problem afresh, with any prospect of success, they will have to consider more closely the question of security. That seems to me a necessary element in any new approach. If we are to bring our Air Force up to parity, if in doing so we are going to strive for a new agreement, to limit air armaments, let us make it clear that we are prepared to put our Air Force into the common service in order to guarantee the convention which we seek. We cannot make that declaration on our own account. Clearly it is impossible to undertake a new obligation, a new commitment of that kind, even if it be limited to the air, without the support of the Dominions and India.
I, therefore, venture to press on the Government, that if the present negotiations break down—and after all, the sands are running out—they will consider at once the importance of declaring that we are going to achieve parity at an early moment, and at the same time we are going to call an Imperial Conference to decide whether the whole Empire will not agree to play some part in the guarantee of security, without which we certainly will not get any limitation of armaments. This case has not been put to the Empire lately, and it should be put to the Empire. I may say in passing that such a conference would be useful at the present, moment. We have to enter another Naval Conference next year and it would be just as well to consult the Empire about that. I beg the Government therefore not to delay too long before they make this new start. All the time the power of expansion is being increased elsewhere. I have no doubt whatever that the power of expansion is being increased in Germany. The point one has to avoid is
that in which a foreign nation having developed and put its faith in and built up its pride in an air force suddenly declares that it is a matter of honour not to reduce it. That was our great difficulty in our naval contest with Germany before the War. The point of honour which met every proposal made to Germany to limit her armaments was always the declaration, "That is a point we cannot discuss." The right hon. Gentleman, I am certain, will endorse that. There is a remarkable conversation recorded on this subject in one of our efforts to persuade Germany before the War to limit the building of her fleet. The conversation took place in 1908 when Sir Charles Hardinge, who was then Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, went with King Edward to meet the Kaiser at Konigsberg. It is a conversation recorded both from the English and the German side. The German Emperor's own record is this:
Sir Charles Hardinge said: 'Surely an arrangement ought to be found for diminishing this construction, and we should stop, or build slower.'
The Emperor: 'Then we shall fight for it as a question of national honour and dignity'"—
and afterwards the Emperor said:
You must always treat Englishmen thus.
That is the real danger that we may get if this kind of spirit is alive, active and determined again in Germany. For that reason I beg the Government on this matter to come to this House very soon again with a definite declaration of policy, and on no account to let this country or other countries feel that there is any tendency to drift.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I would like to draw attention to an historical fact which has so far escaped the attention of the House. This year has witnessed a very important event in British aviation. For the first time in our history the Secretary of State for Air during his tenure of office has become a pilot. In the early part of last year he went down to a London aerodrome. He started flying, at mid-summer he was flying by himself, and by the autumn he had taken his pilot's certificate. I feel that we ought to congratulate him on the magnificent record he has
shown by his bravery, and I express the hope that other Members of this House will follow his excellent example.
There are two questions which I want to put to my right hon. Friend. The first is connected with the defence of this country. We have a slight increase in the Air Estimates. It is going to be just enough to annoy all the cranks like the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), and a large number of people like hon. Gentlemen below me, and it will do nothing to ensure the defence of this country. I ask my right hon. Friend if, as a result of these two extra squadrons for home defence, we are any safer in this country? Can he come down to this House and give an assurance that with these two extra squadrons he can, first of all, defend London against any hostile power; secondly, can he give an assurance that at the same time as he is defending London he can bring food ships up the Channel, and, thirdly, can he give an assurance that he is capable with the limited forces at his disposal of protecting the large number of aeroplane works in this country, the aerodromes, factories, railway centres and the docks? These are the places which will be attacked. Hostile bombers will not go out of their way to drop bombs on women and children; they would go for the nerve centres af the country. If he has these two extra squadrons, can he give us an assurance that he is capable of defending these nerve centres? If so, I shall support him; if he cannot then this insurance policy, which is costing this country £20,000,000, is pure waste.
The second question I want to ask is connected with the Memorandum. It makes various suggestions; it throws out various hints; it is very vague. It has been explained by the Lord President of the Council, but still simple country Members of this House, who are not familiar with Parliamentary procedure, are still a little vague as to what is actually meant. I understand that the policy of the Government is first to aim at universal disarmament in the air. Unfortunately, that has been found impossible to obtain and, therefore, they have retreated and now suggest in the
Memorandum that we should try to get partial disarmament in the air and do what we can to persuade continental countries to come down to our level. Suppose this is found to be impossible, what I want to know is whether the hon. Member proposes to implement the hint in the Memorandum and take immediate steps—I cannot over emphasise the word "immediate"—to build up until we reach parity? Does it mean that he is going to introduce in the course of this year, if we are faced with a failure of the Disarmament Conference, a Supplementary Estimate? If so, then we know where we are. We vote for it or against it. We are now being asked to vote for something we do not know, something we cannot see, and something we do not understand. If he says, "Yes, if the conference fails I am going to introduce a Supplementary Estimate," this House will know where it is. If he says, "No," I suggest that this Memorandum which explains the Government's policy is a trick; the whole thing is humbug and nothing more or less than a false prospectus sent out to mislead the House and the country into a false sense of security.

11.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I think that the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) have done good service in trying to get a better explanation of the important announcement made by the Lord President to-day. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a decision of the Cabinet on a question which agitates us, that is our safety from the point of view of the air. What we are anxious about is this promise of getting parity one day is becoming a hardy annual with the Government. We heard it last year and the year before, but it is quite an old story and the country and the House of Commons are getting heartily sick of it. Nobody understands what the pronouncement actually means. I want to get a definite reply. If the Disarmament Conference fails, do the Government then intend to introduce legislation to keep us on a basis of parity before we start another Conference on the air, or are we to have an air conference after the Disarmament
Conference and before we get parity? If the latter, we are two conferences away to-day from the point of getting parity, and that may spread into another year, judging by what happens with these conferences. I think it is high time this thing should be dealt with more quickly than that. We want to know, if the Disarmament Conference fails, whether that will be the time when this country is to be asked to come to parity before we go into another conference on air, and air alone.

11.26 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The country will be very relieved when it learns of the most important statement made by the Lord President of the Council earlier in the day, but the importance of that statement lies in the fact that steps will be taken to carry it into effect. Time is of the utmost importance in this matter. Sufficient has already been said this evening to show the very grave condition of affairs upon the Continent. The very essence of the danger of attack from the air lies in the rapidity of that attack and the absence of any warning that that attack is about to take place, and we cannot therefore wait indefinitely before providing ourselves with the necessary Air Forces to give us security in comparison with the Air Forces of Continental countries. I hope the Government will enforce a time limit when the Convention which was mentioned by the Lord President of the Council takes place. I feel sure that if a time limit was imposed on the other nations within which they would have to make up their minds as to whether they were going to agree to our proposals or not, an agreement would be come to. At any rate, we should all know where we were, and we could carry out this policy of parity within a certain limit of time.
I desire to take part in this Debate in order to draw attention to the very serious danger in which our Mercantile Marine will be placed in any future war, due to its extreme vulnerability to attack from the air. In the Air Clauses of the Draft Disarmament Convention this country proposed to the nations of the world to do away altogether with air bombing. I hope that in any new Convention that will not be put forward to the nations of the world.
It is entirely unpracticable, and it would never be carried out; if it was agreed to, when war came, it would never be carried out. I would like to remind the Committee what the Lord President of the Council said in regard to this matter in this House:
Will any form of prohibition … treaty, agreement or anything you like, be effective in war? Frankly, I doubt it.
He went on to say:
If a man has a potential weapon and has his back to the wall and is going to be killed, he will use that weapon whatever it is and whatever undertaking he has given about it. Experience has shown us that the stern test of war will break down all conventions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 634, Vol. 270.]
I agree with every word of that statement, but I cannot understand how the Lord President, if be believes in it as he undoubtedly does, can agree that this country should put before the world so impracticable, almost hypocritical, a proposal as that we shall do away with bombing in the air, when he knows perfectly well, from what he himself said that it would never be carried out. If such proposals were put into any new convention by this country they would do an ill service to the cause of disarmament and peace. It only gives the nations of the world something to discuss and to talk about and to waste time over.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has spoken about the bombing of civil populations. I totally disagree with what he has said with regard to that matter. I do not mean that I am in agreement with bombing civilians, but to-day war is not confined to the Army, Navy or the Air Force. The whole nation joins in war, every man and woman does war work, and it is certain that our industrial areas, our ports, our docks and this City of London, the most important centre for this country in time of war, will be subjected to bombing from the air. There is no doubt that our mercantile marine, in particular, will be liable to this form of attack, and we are not in a position to-day to defend the mercantile marine from such attack.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) spoke as if the era of the flying machine had displaced the era of the ship and the gun. I disagree with him. There is no question of any jealousy
between one Service and another; each has its own particular function. In the late War the mercantile marine was liable to attack from the surface ship and the submarine, and they were protected from such attack by the men of war. That function of the Navy still exists to-day as it existed in the past. Therefore, it is necessary for this country to have a Navy just as strong and efficient is it was in the past in order to meet that particular form of attack, but, in addition, there is the menace of attack from the air on the mercantile marine, an attack which in the main, cannot be met by the ships of the Navy. It must be met by aeroplanes operating from shore stations.
What does this attack on the mercantile marine really amount to? If we take the radius of action of a bombing machine or torpedo-carrying machine as some 300 miles, and if hon. Members will look at a chart of the world on which is shown the trade routes, they will be astonished to find over how large an area throughout the world our mercantile marine would be subject to attack by aircraft from one or other of the great Powers. The area would include the whole of the North Sea, of course; the docks and harbours of this country; the approaches to the Channel; the whole of the trade route from the Channel to Gibraltar; every yard of the way from Gibraltar to the Suez Canal. Outside those closed waters, the trade coming from the Cape of Good Hope and South America converging as it does off the West Coast of Africa would be liable to attack from Dakkar. Singapore and its approaches are liable to attack; our trade in Far Eastern waters and in the Caribbean Sea would also be in danger. What steps have been taken to counter the danger?
Are the Government satisfied that they can give reasonable security to our mercantile marine? No country in the world is so dependent on the safe arrival of cargoes of foodstuffs and other commodities in our ports as we are. It is useless to convoy our merchant vessels in safety to the Channel and into port if, on their arrival, they are to be destroyed by bombs or torpedoes from air craft. And it is equally useless to have a large air force is this country and in the strategic bases we hold throughout the world in order to protect our merchant ships on
arrival in port unless we have sufficient naval forces to guard them until they reach those enclosed waters or ports. Only by having a sufficiency of both aircraft and naval vessels shall we be able to give reasonable protection to our trade.
What provision is being made at our strategic bases to counter air attack? Have we sufficient air forces at Gibraltar, at Malta, at Suez, at the Cape of Good Hope, at Singapore—at all these important links in the chain of our communications throughout the world? Let us be thankful that we have those vital links, in our long line of communications, but we must provide them with the aircraft necessary to deal with any possible enemy aerial attack. Unless we are prepared to deal with this menace I can visualise the possibility of the Mediterranean being closed entirely to our trade. Such a contingency would force our vessels to take the Cape route, which would mean longer voyages, and the necessity for a larger mercantile marine if our country was to be kept supplied with all that it requires. I think this is a form of defence in which the Dominions and the Colonies might play a greater part. They could make a very valuable contribution to Imperial Defence if they would bear a greater share of the burden of defending our long lines of communications by developing the aerial arm. I hope the Government will take steps without delay to give reasonable security to our trade over our long lines of communications, because our existence depends on keeping them open. This matter is so important from the point of view of the security of this country and the Empire that I urge the Government not to delay but to fix definitely a time limit within which agreement among the nations must be come to—failing which we must take all the measures which are necessary to place our aerial defences in the state in which they should be for our security.

11.40 p.m

Captain GUEST: I shall not speak for more than a few minutes, as I know that there are other Votes to be taken, but I cannot lose the opportunity of the presence of the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council to endorse the very simple question which has been put to them as to what the Committee
can understand by the statement made this evening, a statement of the gravest importance and one in which every supporter of the Government is desirous and having the greatest faith and to which they desire to give the greatest support. But hon. Members have to work outside this House; they have to go to their constituents and to say something in simple language to the electors whom they represent. I submit with great respect to the Treasury Bench that we have not got the little simple thing that we want and I know that it is easy to reply that nobody can give a date for anything in this world; nobody can say "Tuesday next," or "Tuesday fortnight," or "Tuesday threeweeks." We know that perfectly well; but there must be some conceivable space of time which will be ample for the consideration of this great problem of international disarmament agreement abroad, and yet will give us something here, which we can tell to our constituents and which they will understand and believe. The Lord President of the Council has said enough to give us great encouragement, but it is not definite enough. I cannot pursue the argument at this time of night; it would be a mistake to do so, probably. I can only submit with great respect to the Prime Minister and the Lord President, who are the two leaders of the party to which I belong, that if we cannot have something more definite than has been so far said to-night, I, as a member of the party, will find myself unable to support Vote A.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have always been under the impression that when I try to make a clear statement to this House it can be understood by every Member of the House, and I cannot help feeling that any hon. Member who to-morrow reads carefully what I said will understand what I meant. I have nothing to add to that statement, which was made with deliberation and with care. I should say that in every line of my speech there was a consciousness on the part of the Government that they realise the gravity of the situation and that they are prepared to deal with it. If any Member of the House reads anything different from that into it, he is reading something which is not in it. If any Member of the House thinks that my observations were not expressing
fully the intentions of the Government or that we do not realise the gravity of the situation; and if he feels that we are not to be trusted to deal with this matter now in our own manner, obviously the only thing he has to do is to vote against the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,210,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1935.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,675,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1935.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1935.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £513,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1935.

11.45 p.m.

Sir E. GRIGG: I should like to call attention to a point on this Vote which closely affects many small African territories. The proportions in which the subsidy is paid to Imperial Airways for their African services are, I think very unfair to the smaller African territories, and give a disproportionate part of the burden to this great Government. I owe to the courtesy of the Under-Secretary the figures for the present year, from which I find that between them the Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika,
Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia pay £52,000, as against £55,000 paid by the Imperial Government. The combined revenues of these six small territories do not amount to a twentieth of the revenue of this country, and I know that, at any rate as regards Kenya, for this arose while I was still out there, there is a very strong feeling that too much is placed upon the smaller territories and too little undertaken by this great Government. I hope the Government will give some attention to that aspect of the matter, because the resources of these small territories are very much strained at the present time. The subsidy which is given in their name according to this Paper does not represent all that they pay, for they pay also for the mails carried, and I know that in Kenya that amounted, in 1932 at any rate, to nearly another £7,000.
I feel very strongly that this Vote, taken as a whole, is inadequate. Here is one of the ways in which we can build up a reserve of pilots, mechanics, and experience of every sort, and I should have liked to see a very much bigger Vote given to civil aviation than the Government have seen fit to provide. There are many things that might be done at the present time to improve Imperial communications, and when by improving them you are also increasing your reserve in a matter of such importance as aviation at the present time, surely that expenditure is worth consideration. I know that on the African route there is need for much more consideration in the matter of quicker machines, greater frequency of mails, and, if possible, the division of passenger from mail traffic. All that means expense. It is obviously not a commercial proposition, but it seems to be worth considering both from the point of view of communications and of defence. Another thing that I am sure my right hon. Friend knows is the importance of increasing the facilities for night flying on the various air routes. I hope it may be possible for the Government to reconsider the subsidy for civil aviation and the proportions in which it is paid, and to devote a larger sum to the purpose.

11.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I hope that the Treasury Bench will not be alarmed at my rising again. I am not
going to ask the Lord President anything this time, for apparently he is in such a bad humour. I should like, however, to ask the Under-Secretary a question about civil aviation. The proportion spent by this country, relative to the total bill, is 2 per cent. In other countries it is nearer 10 per cent., and in the United States it is 40 per cent. This is a very big subject. The other day, in answer to a question, the Minister said that a committee was going into it. Can he let us know what is the constitution of that committee—whether it is Cabinet committee, or whether it is the same committee which decided what proportion of money was to be spent on the various services, because, if it is, it seems to me a very unsatisfactory one.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I should like to ask the Minister one question. It is on the subject of the Light Aeroplane Club. There is only £16,000 put down in the Estimate this year, as against £15,000 last year. The Minister will remember the Estimate of a year or two ago it used to be £15,000 for the Light Aeroplane Club, and £5,000 for the National Flying Service. The National Flying Service not having fulfilled their agreement with the Government, their subsidy has been cut out, leaving the Light Aeroplane Club with £15,000. Last year my right hon. Friend made fresh arrangements with the Club, but the amount put down in the Estimate is less than was expended last year. I should have thought that the Light Aeroplane Club, as my hon. Friend opposite said just now, was a vital part of the training of pilots in this country, and also a means of increasing air sense among our civilian population. It is the only chance for the son of an ordinary man to take up flying. In a large Estimate such as the Air Ministry's, £16,000 is a small and insignificant sum to be allotted to the training of the youth of the country in civilian flying.
This is a matter which ought to be looked into at the earliest possible date. In Germany and Italy—I have not the figures with me to-night, but I know it for a fact—very large subsidies are given, not necessarily with the idea of training, but for encouraging the movement among boys and young people in the villages up and down those countries. It is in such
ways that a moderate expenditure of money can be made to cover an enormous number of the population of the younger generation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider whether we could not increase the number of the Light Aeroplane Clubs which are able to receive subsidies in the future, in order that we may create a larger reserve of pilots than we have in the country to-day. Hon. Members have pointed out the smallness of our reserve of pilots compared with that of other countries, and this is certainly a way in which we can make some inroad upon this difficulty. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go carefully into this matter and see whether he cannot for another year make some arrangement to increase these facilities for other Clubs.

11.54 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that the Committee, or the hon. Members who have just raised these points, would wish me to go into any of them at this time of night, though they are most important and interesting, especially that dealing with the Flying Club. I will merely say that all these points will be fully taken into consideration, and, I hope, dealt with on the Report stage, in my speech then.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

AIR FORCE RESERVE (PILOTS AND OBSERVERS) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

OVERSEAS TRADE [GUARANTEES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1930, by extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty, the period within which the new guarantees may be given under those Acts in connection with export transactions, and by extending to the thirty-
first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty, the period during which guarantees so given may remain in force.

Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Runciman, Mr. Hore-Belisha, and Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL,

"to extend the period during which guarantees may, respectively, be given and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1930," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the counties of Berwick, Midlothian, and Roxburgh, which was presented on the 29th day of January, 1934, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Ministry of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the borough of Great Yarmouth, and part of the rural district of Blything, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 29th day of January 1934, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlann.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.